From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Sep  1 04:33:30 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 10:33:30 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
Message-ID: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>

Hi all,

at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that 
would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing 
its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.

Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other 
stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able 
to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical 
community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a 
statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days 
available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an 
all inclusive statement.)

Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only 
an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, 
with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your 
opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find 
support in civil society.

jeanette

P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email 
does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?

From anne at webfoundation.org  Mon Sep  1 03:45:18 2014
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:45:18 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAA5eo1+pWt=WG01g9NO8qkm7Z-3g_WdSJ-D3K2QxW0h4U84KQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CA+4KnA_1xLV7K-_sqQxjsCRYL59UorkFqDtqPQrKd4xSbNUVFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5eo1+pWt=WG01g9NO8qkm7Z-3g_WdSJ-D3K2QxW0h4U84KQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbEdNTZusGatAnJS7q_Pc2wSzUJFrp_qDFeQ_9dGK5Un0A@mail.gmail.com>

+1 from WF
Anne


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org> wrote:

> Agreed. If there are additional /different things that we want to say as
> CS, we could also draft our own letter if needed. But my understanding is
> that we had agreed to keep it pretty simple, so sounds good and more
> effective. Brett
>
> Brett Solomon
> Executive Director
> Access | accessnow.org
>
> +1 917 969 6077
>  @solomonbrett
> Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB
> Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Public Knowledge supports.
>> On Sep 1, 2014 10:29 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi all,
>>>
>>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
>>> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
>>> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>>
>>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
>>> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
>>> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
>>> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
>>> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
>>> statement.)
>>>
>>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>> support in civil society.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://www.webfoundation.org/> |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/db8f9d31/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 13:38:48 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:38:48 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Final draft of the IGF Mandate
 recommendation statement
In-Reply-To: <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net>
References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8df5vgc09d9c8NXLJ6F0chLKbnhj3LcQRb5+F3VT1=3A@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Stephanie, Jeanette and all who have been diligently working on
this to make it an IGF 2014 outcome.
Yes, I tried to mention this on the pad but I see that is not included
here. Even nowadays, the UN indulge in crowdsourcing so I think they will
understand the idea that there are remote/online participants that are
initial signatories to this call. So I suggest to add a phrase (as I did on
the pad version) to the "undersigned participants at the 2014 IGF in
Istanbul" reflecting the involvement and early endorsement by members of
the Internet global multistakeholder community (not present in Istanbul).
Unless you intend to hand over to UN officials a physical copy of the
letter right on the spot with handwritten signatures on it.

In addition to that, I've spotted a couple typos in the text and thought I
might as well send out a markup version as attached.
Thanks again,

Mawaki


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>
wrote:

> Replace
>
> In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for all
> stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned participants at the
> 2014 IGF in Istanbul recommend an extension of the its mandate which is
> open-ended, as soon as possible.   This letter will remain open for
> signature until November 1, 2014.
>
> to
>
> In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for all
> stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned participants of the
> 2014 IGF recommend that its mandate is extended as soon as possible to be
> open-ended.
>
> This letter will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014.
>
>
>
>
>
> Christian
> NB I'm not in Istanbul but hopefully still considered a participant.
>
> Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF
> mandate.  We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic that
> many different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including countries.
> Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc Jeanette Hofmann, and
> I will manage their input prior to the opening of the document for
> signature tomorrow morning.  We are looking for a suitable platform to put
> the document up for signature, suggestions welcome.
> Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with
> everyone!
> Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> --
> Christian de Larrinaga
> FBCS, CITP, MCMA
> -------------------------
> @ FirstHand
> -------------------------
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel at firsthand.net
> -------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/5b02e9fe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended mandate of the IGF_proposed-edits.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 22120 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/5b02e9fe/attachment.docx>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Sep  3 13:43:51 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 23:13:51 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
	<540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
	<0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com>
	<83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHCi_FMkzc54O7PBjz2BcwbtR0wUfTiZfG9_GVzRUAYesg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits
meeting.

The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a
permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or
long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the
language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment (the
cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). Transparency and
accountability for me are an integral part of what needs to be
strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a
suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being
drafted.

I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) to
the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this conversation
has now spread out over both lists, people who are only part of the IGC
should have the correct background information as well.

Thanks and best,
Anja


On 3 September 2014 22:27, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> My cent:
>
> Split the difference.
>
> Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation
> in IGF;
>
> coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in the
> -annual - review process for IGF accountability and transparency reasons.
>
> Everyone's a winner.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of George Sadowsky <
> george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM
> To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
>
> I agree with Prakesh also.
>
> George
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
> >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
> >>
> >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should
> push for
> >> accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really going to
> help
> >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be
> renewable has
> >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not
> perfect).
> >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's
> term)
> >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
> >
> > Agree with Pranash
> > --MM
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/c489f40f/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 14:01:19 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:01:19 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHCi_FMkzc54O7PBjz2BcwbtR0wUfTiZfG9_GVzRUAYesg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
 <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com>
 <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <CAJqNAHCi_FMkzc54O7PBjz2BcwbtR0wUfTiZfG9_GVzRUAYesg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8UdiaQrAOscSeuYfLD-FsjBX_qUXrUZQGhPc3SNGsiDQ@mail.gmail.com>

I fully agree with Pranesh and Seun here.
While supporting the current call for open-ended mandate (time-wise) for
the IGF, I certainly didn't mean to imply that everything else shall remain
the same, and maybe we should make that clear in the statement? Could
someone come up with a sentence or two to include in the cross-stakeholder
statement in the next hour or two?

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
wrote:

> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits
> meeting.
>
> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a
> permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or
> long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the
> language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment (the
> cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). Transparency and
> accountability for me are an integral part of what needs to be
> strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a
> suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being
> drafted.
>

Anja, why wouldn't you make the same suggestion to the drafters of the
cross-stakeholder statement?
In any event, I think we should agree that we need to start a process
addressing questions such as those raised by Pranesh and Seun for a
reformed IGF in its second decade (the IGF 2.0, if you will) shortly after
the Istanbul meeting in order to have other recommendations follow the
extension one, to that effect.
Thanks and best,

Mawaki

>
> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) to
> the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this conversation
> has now spread out over both lists, people who are only part of the IGC
> should have the correct background information as well.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/a49f44e9/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Sep  3 14:09:37 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 23:39:37 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8UdiaQrAOscSeuYfLD-FsjBX_qUXrUZQGhPc3SNGsiDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
	<540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
	<0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com>
	<83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
	<CAJqNAHCi_FMkzc54O7PBjz2BcwbtR0wUfTiZfG9_GVzRUAYesg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8UdiaQrAOscSeuYfLD-FsjBX_qUXrUZQGhPc3SNGsiDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBA26H47eZ=qtcewPh2+De_8Cq1mtsquH9_dxnD45CCNg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mawaki and all,

My responses below:

On 3 September 2014 23:31, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> I fully agree with Pranesh and Seun here.
> While supporting the current call for open-ended mandate (time-wise) for
> the IGF, I certainly didn't mean to imply that everything else shall remain
> the same, and maybe we should make that clear in the statement? Could
> someone come up with a sentence or two to include in the cross-stakeholder
> statement in the next hour or two?
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits
>> meeting.
>>
>> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a
>> permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or
>> long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the
>> language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment (the
>> cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not).
>>
>
[Anja] Correction: I see that in the final version of the cross-stakeholder
group, which was circulated only a little while ago, there has been an
attempt to now address this as well.

Thanks for all your work on this, Jeanette and Stephanie.


> Transparency and accountability for me are an integral part of what needs
>> to be strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a
>> suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being
>> drafted.
>>
>
> Anja, why wouldn't you make the same suggestion to the drafters of the
> cross-stakeholder statement?
>

[Anja] Because I had mentioned this on the BB list earlier, and my
assumption was that if it wasn't included in the draft, then this was
likely because other stakeholder groups did not agree. Glad to see that
that assumption was mistaken.

In any event, I think we should agree that we need to start a process
> addressing questions such as those raised by Pranesh and Seun for a
> reformed IGF in its second decade (the IGF 2.0, if you will) shortly after
> the Istanbul meeting in order to have other recommendations follow the
> extension one, to that effect.
>

[Anja] +1.

Best,
Anja




> Thanks and best,
>
> Mawaki
>
>>
>> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) to
>> the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this conversation
>> has now spread out over both lists, people who are only part of the IGC
>> should have the correct background information as well.
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/f2948acc/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Sep  3 15:56:19 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:56:19 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Final draft of the IGF Mandate
 recommendation statement
In-Reply-To: <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net>
References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net>
Message-ID: <54077263.8080602@mail.utoronto.ca>

THanks, very helpful, it reads better.  It was a long day....
Stephanie
On 2014-09-03, 12:36, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
> Replace
>
> In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for 
> all stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned 
> participants at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul recommend an extension of the 
> its mandate which is open-ended, as soon as possible.   This letter 
> will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014.
>
>
> to
>
> In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for 
> all stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned 
> participants of the 2014 IGF recommend that its mandate is extended as 
> soon as possible to be open-ended.
>
> This letter will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014.
>
>
>
>
> Christian
> NB I'm not in Istanbul but hopefully still considered a participant.
>
> Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF 
>> mandate.  We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic 
>> that many different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including 
>> countries. Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc 
>> Jeanette Hofmann, and I will manage their input prior to the opening 
>> of the document for signature tomorrow morning.  We are looking for a 
>> suitable platform to put the document up for signature, suggestions 
>> welcome.
>> Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with 
>> everyone!
>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> -- 
> Christian de Larrinaga
> FBCS, CITP, MCMA
> -------------------------
> @ FirstHand
> -------------------------
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel at firsthand.net
> -------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/cbf8c685/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Sep  3 16:02:59 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:02:59 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>,<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <540773F3.2010302@mail.utoronto.ca>

thanks, I was going to propose everyone join an IGF accountability 
project, and we find funding for it.  I think government could be a good 
target for funds for that....or business.  Happy to pass the hat.  We do 
need it, but the IGF is at too immature a maturity level at the 
moment....needs a longer mandate and stable funding to get to the next level
Cheers, Stephanie
On 2014-09-03, 12:57, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> My cent:
>
> Split the difference.
>
> Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation in IGF;
>
> coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in the -annual - review process for IGF accountability and transparency reasons.
>
> Everyone's a winner.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM
> To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
>
> I agree with Prakesh also.
>
> George
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
>>> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>>>
>>> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for
>>> accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really going to help
>>> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has
>>> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect).
>>> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term)
>>> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>> Agree with Pranash
>> --MM
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/555e1280/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Sep  3 16:09:51 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:09:51 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Final draft of the IGF Mandate
 recommendation statement
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8df5vgc09d9c8NXLJ6F0chLKbnhj3LcQRb5+F3VT1=3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net> <CACTo+v8df5vgc09d9c8NXLJ6F0chLKbnhj3LcQRb5+F3VT1=3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5407758F.8090401@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks so much Mawaki, I thought I had copied the latest version from 
the pad but maybe I missed your comments, so sorry!  It has been a 
pretty hairy day of drafting, and we worked a lot of the time in word 
because the internet is quite unreliable here at the conference and we 
could not reach the pad....
ANd thanks for the mark up copy, this is great.
Cheers Stephanie
On 2014-09-03, 13:38, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Thank you Stephanie, Jeanette and all who have been diligently working 
> on this to make it an IGF 2014 outcome.
> Yes, I tried to mention this on the pad but I see that is not included 
> here. Even nowadays, the UN indulge in crowdsourcing so I think they 
> will understand the idea that there are remote/online participants 
> that are initial signatories to this call. So I suggest to add a 
> phrase (as I did on the pad version) to the "undersigned participants 
> at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul" reflecting the involvement and early 
> endorsement by members of the Internet global multistakeholder 
> community (not present in Istanbul). Unless you intend to hand over to 
> UN officials a physical copy of the letter right on the spot with 
> handwritten signatures on it.
>
> In addition to that, I've spotted a couple typos in the text and 
> thought I might as well send out a markup version as attached.
> Thanks again,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Christian de Larrinaga 
> <cdel at firsthand.net <mailto:cdel at firsthand.net>> wrote:
>
>     Replace
>
>     In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum
>     for all stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned
>     participants at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul recommend an extension of
>     the its mandate which is open-ended, as soon as possible. This
>     letter will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014.
>
>
>     to
>
>     In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum
>     for all stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned
>     participants of the 2014 IGF recommend that its mandate is
>     extended as soon as possible to be open-ended.
>
>     This letter will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014.
>
>
>
>
>     Christian
>     NB I'm not in Istanbul but hopefully still considered a participant.
>
>     Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>     Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the
>>     IGF mandate.  We have engaged in many consultations and are
>>     optimistic that many different stakeholders will sign on,
>>     possibly including countries.  Please return any comments to me
>>     directly tonight, cc Jeanette Hofmann, and I will manage their
>>     input prior to the opening of the document for signature tomorrow
>>     morning.  We are looking for a suitable platform to put the
>>     document up for signature, suggestions welcome.
>>     Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work
>>     with everyone!
>>     Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     discuss mailing list
>>     discuss at 1net.org  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>     -- 
>     Christian de Larrinaga
>     FBCS, CITP, MCMA
>     -------------------------
>     @ FirstHand
>     -------------------------
>     +44 7989 386778 <tel:%2B44%207989%20386778>
>     cdel at firsthand.net <mailto:cdel at firsthand.net>
>     -------------------------
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     discuss mailing list
>     discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/4f5d0f7d/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Sep  3 16:15:16 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:15:16 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHCi_FMkzc54O7PBjz2BcwbtR0wUfTiZfG9_GVzRUAYesg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>	<540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>	<0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>	<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com>	<83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <CAJqNAHCi_FMkzc54O7PBjz2BcwbtR0wUfTiZfG9_GVzRUAYesg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <540776D4.4060701@mail.utoronto.ca>

I think this is helpful, and I am sorry that I missed the BestBits 
meeting and all the discussion.  My understanding (and I cc Jeanette who 
was there and who was taking on the task for this letter, was that 
discussion of evolution and strengthening was to go in the other 
letter....because it was harder to get agreement on that.  WE are 
getting countries to sign on to extension of the mandate, which is quite 
difficult.  We cannot start throwing in qualitative material that 
requires negotiation.
Is this not why we have three letter going?
Thanks
Stephanie
On 2014-09-03, 13:43, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits 
> meeting.
>
> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a 
> permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or 
> long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the 
> language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment 
> (the cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). Transparency 
> and accountability for me are an integral part of what needs to be 
> strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a 
> suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being 
> drafted.
>
> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) 
> to the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this 
> conversation has now spread out over both lists, people who are only 
> part of the IGC should have the correct background information as well.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 3 September 2014 22:27, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu 
> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>> wrote:
>
>     My cent:
>
>     Split the difference.
>
>     Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN
>     participation in IGF;
>
>     coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in
>     the -annual - review process for IGF accountability and
>     transparency reasons.
>
>     Everyone's a winner.
>
>     Lee
>
>
>     ________________________________________
>     From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of
>     George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com
>     <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>
>     Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM
>     To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller
>     Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits
>     Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
>
>     I agree with Prakesh also.
>
>     George
>
>
>     On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>     <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>
>     >
>     >
>     >> -----Original Message-----
>     >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that
>     unanimity.
>     >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a
>     permanent body.
>     >>
>     >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we
>     should push for
>     >> accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really
>     going to help
>     >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be
>     renewable has
>     >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy
>     is not perfect).
>     >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of
>     the IGF's term)
>     >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more
>     "multistakeholder".
>     >
>     > Agree with Pranash
>     > --MM
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     > governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     > To be removed from the list, visit:
>     > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>     >
>     > For all other list information and functions, see:
>     > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     > http://www.igcaucus.org/
>     >
>     > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/b9d60e43/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Sep  3 17:22:56 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 23:22:56 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Final draft of the IGF Mandate
 recommendation statement
In-Reply-To: <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net>
References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> <540743A0.9040000@firsthand.net>
Message-ID: <540786B0.9020707@wzb.eu>

Good point! Jeanette

Am 03.09.14 18:36, schrieb Christian de Larrinaga:
> Replace
>
> In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for all
> stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned participants at
> the 2014 IGF in Istanbul recommend an extension of the its mandate which
> is open-ended, as soon as possible.   This letter will remain open for
> signature until November 1, 2014.
>
>
> to
>
> In order to allow the IGF to reach its full potential as a forum for all
> stakeholders in Internet Governance, we the undersigned participants of
> the 2014 IGF recommend that its mandate is extended as soon as possible
> to be open-ended.
>
> This letter will remain open for signature until November 1, 2014.
>
>
>
>
> Christian
> NB I'm not in Istanbul but hopefully still considered a participant.
>
> Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF
>> mandate.  We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic
>> that many different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including
>> countries. Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc
>> Jeanette Hofmann, and I will manage their input prior to the opening
>> of the document for signature tomorrow morning.  We are looking for a
>> suitable platform to put the document up for signature, suggestions
>> welcome.
>> Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with
>> everyone!
>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> --
> Christian de Larrinaga
> FBCS, CITP, MCMA
> -------------------------
> @ FirstHand
> -------------------------
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel at firsthand.net
> -------------------------

From nigel.hickson at icann.org  Wed Sep  3 16:31:04 2014
From: nigel.hickson at icann.org (Nigel Hickson)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:31:04 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <540776D4.4060701@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
 <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
 <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com>
 <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
 <CAJqNAHCi_FMkzc54O7PBjz2BcwbtR0wUfTiZfG9_GVzRUAYesg@mail.gmail.com>
 <540776D4.4060701@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <D02D5456.735F6%nigel.hickson@icann.org>

Good evening 

I think (but am often wrong) we are at one of those pivotal moments; the
strength of the IGF is the diverse bodies it throws together.  A call for an
open-ended mandate for IGF is not guaranteed to find traction at the UNGA
but we would kick ourselves had we not tried.

Best

Nigel 


From:  Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Reply-To:  Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Date:  Wednesday, September 3, 2014 11:15 PM
To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Anja
Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Cc:  Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, George  Sadowsky
<george.sadowsky at gmail.com>, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>,
Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>, Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject:  Re: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent

I think this is helpful, and I am sorry that I missed the BestBits meeting
and all the discussion.  My understanding (and I cc Jeanette who was there
and who was taking on the task for this letter, was that discussion of
evolution and strengthening was to go in the other letter....because it was
harder to get agreement on that.  WE are getting countries to sign on to
extension of the mandate, which is quite difficult.  We cannot start
throwing in qualitative material that requires negotiation.
Is this not why we have three letter going?
Thanks 
Stephanie
On 2014-09-03, 13:43, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits
> meeting. 
> 
> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a permanent
> or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or long-term body
> while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the language that the Best
> Bits draft statement also uses at the moment (the cross-stakeholder statement
> unfortunately does not). Transparency and accountability for me are an
> integral part of what needs to be strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be
> spelled out. I have made a suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB
> statement is being drafted.
> 
> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) to the
> IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this conversation has now
> spread out over both lists, people who are only part of the IGC should have
> the correct background information as well.
> 
> Thanks and best,
> Anja 
> 
> 
> On 3 September 2014 22:27, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>> My cent:
>> 
>> Split the difference.
>> 
>> Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation in
>> IGF;
>> 
>> coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in the -annual
>> - review process for IGF accountability and transparency reasons.
>> 
>> Everyone's a winner.
>> 
>> Lee
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of George Sadowsky
>> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM
>> To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
>> 
>> I agree with Prakesh also.
>> 
>> George
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> >
>>> >
>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
>>>> >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should
>>>> push for
>>>> >> accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really going to
>>>> help
>>>> >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable
>>>> has
>>>> >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not
>>>> perfect).
>>>> >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's
>>>> term)
>>>> >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>>> >
>>> > Agree with Pranash
>>> > --MM
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
> 
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/1b0e6187/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/1b0e6187/attachment.bin>

From joao.caribe at me.com  Mon Sep  1 03:48:12 2014
From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 10:48:12 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com>

Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count me on to support as I can.

_
João Carlos Caribé
(021) 8761 1967
(021) 4042 7727
Skype joaocaribe
Enviado via iPad

> Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> escreveu:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
> 
> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive statement.)
> 
> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil society.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Sep  3 17:04:50 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:04:50 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <D02D5456.735F6%nigel.hickson@icann.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <CAJqNAHCi_FMkzc54O7PBjz2BcwbtR0wUfTiZfG9_GVzRUAYesg@mail.gmail.com> <540776D4.4060701@mail.utoronto.ca> <D02D5456.735F6%nigel.hickson@icann.org>
Message-ID: <54078272.7020403@mail.utoronto.ca>

That certainly is my view, Nigel.  We can fix it once we get it...
cheers Stephanie
On 2014-09-03, 16:31, Nigel Hickson wrote:
> Good evening
>
> I think (but am often wrong) we are at one of those pivotal moments; 
> the strength of the IGF is the diverse bodies it throws together.  A 
> call for an open-ended mandate for IGF is not guaranteed to find 
> traction at the UNGA but we would kick ourselves had we not tried.
>
> Best
>
> Nigel
>
>
> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Reply-To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 11:15 PM
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Anja Kovacs 
> <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, Lee W 
> McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>>
> Cc: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>, 
> George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com 
> <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>, Pranesh Prakash 
> <pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>>, Jeanette 
> Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>>, Best Bits 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
>
> I think this is helpful, and I am sorry that I missed the BestBits 
> meeting and all the discussion.  My understanding (and I cc Jeanette 
> who was there and who was taking on the task for this letter, was that 
> discussion of evolution and strengthening was to go in the other 
> letter....because it was harder to get agreement on that.  WE are 
> getting countries to sign on to extension of the mandate, which is 
> quite difficult.  We cannot start throwing in qualitative material 
> that requires negotiation.
> Is this not why we have three letter going?
> Thanks
> Stephanie
> On 2014-09-03, 13:43, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best 
>> Bits meeting.
>>
>> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a 
>> permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent 
>> or long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is 
>> the language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the 
>> moment (the cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). 
>> Transparency and accountability for me are an integral part of what 
>> needs to be strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I 
>> have made a suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB 
>> statement is being drafted.
>>
>> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB 
>> statement) to the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since 
>> this conversation has now spread out over both lists, people who are 
>> only part of the IGC should have the correct background information 
>> as well.
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>> On 3 September 2014 22:27, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu 
>> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     My cent:
>>
>>     Split the difference.
>>
>>     Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN
>>     participation in IGF;
>>
>>     coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in
>>     the -annual - review process for IGF accountability and
>>     transparency reasons.
>>
>>     Everyone's a winner.
>>
>>     Lee
>>
>>
>>     ________________________________________
>>     From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of
>>     George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>
>>     Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM
>>     To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller
>>     Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits
>>     Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF
>>     permanent
>>
>>     I agree with Prakesh also.
>>
>>     George
>>
>>
>>     On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>>     <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >> -----Original Message-----
>>     >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that
>>     unanimity.
>>     >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a
>>     permanent body.
>>     >>
>>     >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we
>>     should push for
>>     >> accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really
>>     going to help
>>     >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be
>>     renewable has
>>     >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy
>>     is not perfect).
>>     >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of
>>     the IGF's term)
>>     >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more
>>     "multistakeholder".
>>     >
>>     > Agree with Pranash
>>     > --MM
>>     > ____________________________________________________________
>>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>     >
>>     > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>     > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     > http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>     >
>>     > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>     <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/73a8eb94/attachment.htm>

From renata at webfoundation.org  Wed Sep  3 18:28:57 2014
From: renata at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 01:28:57 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Web We Want Panel at IGF
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc1rko4DymCncbe+caSO1RyoJDgKfwyo0pRaSuCL0a6GkQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

We are really excited to have a very international panel tomorrow. You
cannot miss it!

Crowdsourcing a Magna Carta for the Web We Want

http://igf2014.sched.org/event/3d8f8daf3278b9f430ce7bf7aa4fdb16#.VAdeQ0g8yng


Here the details: Workshop Room 08 11:00 WS157: Crowdsourcing a Magna Carta
for 'The Web We Want' Click here to join the session
<https://intgovforum.webex.com/mw0307l/mywebex/default.do?service=1&siteurl=intgovforum&nomenu=true&main_url=%2Fmc0806l%2Fe.do%3Fsiteurl%3Dintgovforum%26AT%3DMI%26EventID%3D311696407%26UID%3D2920182%26Host%3D58b05a3c09260344%26FrameSet%3D2%26MTID%3Dm2b6502b66577929c522fcf311ec15df2>
Live
transcription <https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=CFI-RPC8> Webcast
<http://webcast.igf2014.org.tr>

​It will be amazing if you could tweet it, be there with us and use the
#webwewant hashtag to agree or disagree.

Harry also published something about it:
http://www.w3.org/blog/2014/09/crowdsourcing-a-magna-carta-for-the-web-at-the-internet-governance-forum/

Thank you so much!

Renata

​

-- 
*Renata Avila *
Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
+44 2032897004 (UK)

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/c76b9939/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Sep  3 18:48:19 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 04:18:19 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <540493E4.7030806@cdt.org>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <540493E4.7030806@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <54079AB3.4020207@itforchange.net>


I have really not been able to fully follow this thread, but I would soon.

But just out of curiosity: what really is the context and urgency to 
suddenly seek making the IGF permanent. (Before I go further, I will 
clearly state that I would indeed like to have the IGF made permanent. )

The IGF extension review will only take place next year as a part of 
WSIS plus 10 review, which is really quite some time off, plus there are 
other very important issues for WSIS plus 10, and we have not quite got 
into that discussion. So, I am not sure what has happened suddenly to 
which we are responding. I will be obliged if those pushing this 
initiative can help me understand this. I may have missed something here.

Apart from wondering about what really precipitated this issue, and the 
urgency if it, I dont think the IGF is at all under any kind of threat 
of being discontinued. So, why is this threat being invented, especially 
when even the review is not around?

I have never found any substantial opposition to continuation of the 
IGF, for it to constitute any real threat. (I remember one weak and 
vague statement of China once that IGF has served its purpose and can be 
closed down, but not much else really.) So, why in the middle of the 
intense activities of an ongoing IGF, where in fact there are some other 
important issues to discuss,  have we gone into this fit of asserting 
the need to continue the IGF is something I am unable to understand.

BTW, I am ready to take one to ten odds bet with anyone that the IGF 
will be renewed, Any takers?

parminder

On Monday 01 September 2014 09:12 PM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> Jeanette, Stephanie
>
> Great initiative.   Would be wonderful if we could turn this around, 
> get signatures and announce during the open mic/closing session.
>
> Can we try and get comments by end of Wednesday, sign-ons by end of 
> day Thurs?
>
> Letter may be a little long and overly full of UN text references - 
> but that may be a matter of tweaking.
>
> Best.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 9/1/2014 5:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN 
>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent 
>> basis.
>>
>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the 
>> IGF and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>
>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and 
>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>
>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>
>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>
>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>
>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>
>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>
>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>> Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence 
>> of the IGF
>>
>>
>> In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the 
>> Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for 
>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance 
>> Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>> The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating 
>> to key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in
>> the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, 
>> security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and 
>> developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing 
>> arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was 
>> intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding 
>> process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical 
>> operations of the Internet.
>> The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the 
>> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation 
>> with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to 
>> make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its 
>> sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to extend the 
>> mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a 
>> view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet 
>> governance”.
>> In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the 
>> UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. 
>> It is a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector 
>> and international organizations discuss important questions of 
>> economic and social development. They share their insights and 
>> achievements and build a common understanding of the Internet’s great 
>> potential.
>>
>>
>> The Secretary-General recommended that
>> (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for 
>> a further five years;
>> (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
>> States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of 
>> the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>
>> Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the 
>> preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for 
>> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 
>> New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>> The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated 
>> in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, 
>> that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum 
>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made by 
>> the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial 
>> Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as 
>> a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with 
>> a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to 
>> address them.”
>>
>> Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the 
>> continuing development of Internet governance, we request the UN 
>> Secretary General to  establish the IGF as a permanent 
>> multistakeholder forum.  We also request that the UN Secretary 
>> General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its 
>> structure and processes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/0f9dcbfe/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Sep  3 18:58:06 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:58:06 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54079AB3.4020207@itforchange.net>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <540493E4.7030806@cdt.org> <54079AB3.4020207@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54079CFE.70809@mail.utoronto.ca>

I defer to others on this list who are regulars at IGF to answer your 
questions in detail, but I think you would have takers on that bet.  I 
think the idea is to push for long term (not permanent, noone can ask 
for permanent these days) so that funding can be secured, and better 
long range planning assured.  We should be out of ad hoc land by now, 
and it certainly does not look like we are, to newbies such as myself ( 
I should mention that the last time I came to IGF in person was in 
2006).  Why now? sadly the time to get collective action is often when 
folks are gathered together. Believe me, I have been missing sessions 
for two days to draft this thing and collaborate so I heartily agree 
that there are other wonderful things to be doing here. :-)
Latest changes are now back up on the mozilla pad at 
https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
Stephanie
On 2014-09-03, 18:48, parminder wrote:
>
> I have really not been able to fully follow this thread, but I would 
> soon.
>
> But just out of curiosity: what really is the context and urgency to 
> suddenly seek making the IGF permanent. (Before I go further, I will 
> clearly state that I would indeed like to have the IGF made permanent. )
>
> The IGF extension review will only take place next year as a part of 
> WSIS plus 10 review, which is really quite some time off, plus there 
> are other very important issues for WSIS plus 10, and we have not 
> quite got into that discussion. So, I am not sure what has happened 
> suddenly to which we are responding. I will be obliged if those 
> pushing this initiative can help me understand this. I may have missed 
> something here.
>
> Apart from wondering about what really precipitated this issue, and 
> the urgency if it, I dont think the IGF is at all under any kind of 
> threat of being discontinued. So, why is this threat being invented, 
> especially when even the review is not around?
>
> I have never found any substantial opposition to continuation of the 
> IGF, for it to constitute any real threat. (I remember one weak and 
> vague statement of China once that IGF has served its purpose and can 
> be closed down, but not much else really.) So, why in the middle of 
> the intense activities of an ongoing IGF, where in fact there are some 
> other important issues to discuss, have we gone into this fit of 
> asserting the need to continue the IGF is something I am unable to 
> understand.
>
> BTW, I am ready to take one to ten odds bet with anyone that the IGF 
> will be renewed, Any takers?
>
> parminder
>
> On Monday 01 September 2014 09:12 PM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>> Jeanette, Stephanie
>>
>> Great initiative.   Would be wonderful if we could turn this around, 
>> get signatures and announce during the open mic/closing session.
>>
>> Can we try and get comments by end of Wednesday, sign-ons by end of 
>> day Thurs?
>>
>> Letter may be a little long and overly full of UN text references - 
>> but that may be a matter of tweaking.
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 9/1/2014 5:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN 
>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent 
>>> basis.
>>>
>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the 
>>> IGF and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>
>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and 
>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>
>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>
>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>
>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>
>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>
>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>
>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence 
>>> of the IGF
>>>
>>>
>>> In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the 
>>> Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for 
>>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue---called the Internet Governance 
>>> Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>>> The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues 
>>> relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those 
>>> enumerated in
>>> the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, 
>>> security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and 
>>> developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing 
>>> arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was 
>>> intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding 
>>> process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical 
>>> operations of the Internet.
>>> The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the 
>>> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal 
>>> consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its 
>>> creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this 
>>> regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to 
>>> extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the 
>>> IGF "with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global 
>>> Internet governance".
>>> In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, 
>>> the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and 
>>> valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the 
>>> private sector and international organizations discuss important 
>>> questions of economic and social development. They share their 
>>> insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the 
>>> Internet's great potential.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Secretary-General recommended that
>>> (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended 
>>> for a further five years;
>>> (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
>>> States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of 
>>> the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>>
>>> Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the 
>>> preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for 
>>> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 
>>> 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>>> The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated 
>>> in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, 
>>> that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum 
>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made 
>>> by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial 
>>> Statement also stated that "a strengthened IGF could better serve as 
>>> a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues 
>>> with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways 
>>> to address them."
>>>
>>> Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the 
>>> continuing development of Internet governance, we request the UN 
>>> Secretary General to  establish the IGF as a permanent 
>>> multistakeholder forum.  We also request that the UN Secretary 
>>> General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its 
>>> structure and processes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> -- 
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> mshears at cdt.org
>> + 44 771 247 2987
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/3398081e/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Sep  3 19:23:35 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:23:35 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Final draft of the IGF Mandate
 recommendation statement
In-Reply-To: <5407A167.8050503@gmail.com>
References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca> <5407A167.8050503@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5407A2F7.1080904@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am sorry I did not hear your interventions on that topic.  I agree 
that careerism is an issue, but it is one that I think can be solved 
with greater accountability in the system, which is hard to institute in 
a temporary project on a 5 year revolving mandate. Further steps in a 
maturity model in my view cannot be made without some stability.
Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-09-03, 19:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> However, the revolving five-year mandate is a barrier to long range planning and investment.
> I won't be signing it. Given that 5 years is about 20 times the normal
> timescale for investment in the Internet, I don't see how a renewable
> 5-year mandate is a problem. I do see an open-ended mandate as a problem,
> for the reason I gave yesterday (the risk of careerism).
>
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>
>
>
>
>
> On 04/09/2014 04:09, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF
>> mandate.  We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic that
>> many different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including countries.
>> Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc Jeanette Hofmann,
>> and I will manage their input prior to the opening of the document for
>> signature tomorrow morning.  We are looking for a suitable platform to
>> put the document up for signature, suggestions welcome.
>> Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with
>> everyone!
>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 23:32:08 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 06:32:08 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <540773F3.2010302@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
	<540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
	<0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com>
	<83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
	<540773F3.2010302@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6garkkKt_x+EA62wpoX-xa+DTgHX-tO_ZqieSVVvKmFzQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 3 Sep 2014 23:03, "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
wrote:

>  thanks, I was going to propose everyone join an IGF accountability
> project, and we find funding for it.  I think government could be a good
> target for funds for that....or business.  Happy to pass the hat.  We do
> need it, but the IGF is at too immature a maturity level at the
> moment....needs a longer mandate and stable funding to get to the next level
> Cheers, Stephanie
> On 2014-09-03, 12:57, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> My cent:
>
> Split the difference.
>
> Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation in IGF;
>
> coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in the -annual - review process for IGF accountability and transparency reasons.
>
> Everyone's a winner.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM
> To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
>
> I agree with Prakesh also.
>
> George
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>
> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for
> accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really going to help
> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has
> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect).
> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term)
> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>
>
> Agree with Pranash
> --MM
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/8a3e1f0f/attachment.htm>

From subi.igp at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 01:17:20 2014
From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:47:20 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Gentle Reminder-main session Role of IGF Evol. ECOSYSTEM
 & Strengthening the IGF FROM 9.30 AM-12.30 Main Room
In-Reply-To: <CANRKRpJMxbbGbVs_1ocifwmq=vR=ryV846KpFRsL2JEQo_Tq_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANRKRpLj8TSVnukJE9eSFR=ttho_KSpp3j4jQeVzoAZAfBrvGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANRKRpJMxbbGbVs_1ocifwmq=vR=ryV846KpFRsL2JEQo_Tq_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFfuWVk1MaBUhWjpynA6sWdozHsO6kwF2_JDCaNfbrF_EoY=iw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Thanks again for everything you have done to make this main possible.  Do
please join us this morning in the main room.

This is also your space to share your views about Strengthening the IGF.
Looking forward to a vibrant and constructive session.

Hashtag : #futureIG

Warmest

Subi Chaturvedi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/e06f3b33/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Sep  4 02:26:16 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:26:16 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <D02D5456.735F6%nigel.hickson@icann.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <CAJqNAHCi_FMkzc54O7PBjz2BcwbtR0wUfTiZfG9_GVzRUAYesg@mail.gmail.com> <540776D4.4060701@mail.utoronto.ca> <D02D5456.735F6%nigel.hickson@icann.org>
Message-ID: <54080608.2020806@wzb.eu>

Nigel, this captures my motivation very well, thank you!
jeanette

Am 03.09.14 22:31, schrieb Nigel Hickson:
> Good evening
>
> I think (but am often wrong) we are at one of those pivotal moments; the
> strength of the IGF is the diverse bodies it throws together.  A call
> for an open-ended mandate for IGF is not guaranteed to find traction at
> the UNGA but we would kick ourselves had we not tried.
>
> Best
>
> Nigel
>
>
> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Reply-To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 11:15 PM
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Anja Kovacs
> <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, Lee W
> McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>>
> Cc: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>, George
> Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>,
> Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>>,
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>>, Best Bits
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
>
> I think this is helpful, and I am sorry that I missed the BestBits
> meeting and all the discussion.  My understanding (and I cc Jeanette who
> was there and who was taking on the task for this letter, was that
> discussion of evolution and strengthening was to go in the other
> letter....because it was harder to get agreement on that.  WE are
> getting countries to sign on to extension of the mandate, which is quite
> difficult.  We cannot start throwing in qualitative material that
> requires negotiation.
> Is this not why we have three letter going?
> Thanks
> Stephanie
> On 2014-09-03, 13:43, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits
>> meeting.
>>
>> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a
>> permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or
>> long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the
>> language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment
>> (the cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not). Transparency
>> and accountability for me are an integral part of what needs to be
>> strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a
>> suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being
>> drafted.
>>
>> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement)
>> to the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this
>> conversation has now spread out over both lists, people who are only
>> part of the IGC should have the correct background information as well.
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>> On 3 September 2014 22:27, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu
>> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     My cent:
>>
>>     Split the difference.
>>
>>     Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN
>>     participation in IGF;
>>
>>     coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in
>>     the -annual - review process for IGF accountability and
>>     transparency reasons.
>>
>>     Everyone's a winner.
>>
>>     Lee
>>
>>
>>     ________________________________________
>>     From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of
>>     George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>
>>     Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM
>>     To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller
>>     Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits
>>     Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
>>
>>     I agree with Prakesh also.
>>
>>     George
>>
>>
>>     On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>>     <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >> -----Original Message-----
>>     >> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
>>     >> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>>     >>
>>     >> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for
>>     >> accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really going to help
>>     >> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has
>>     >> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect).
>>     >> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term)
>>     >> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>>     >
>>     > Agree with Pranash
>>     > --MM
>>     > ____________________________________________________________
>>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     >governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>     >
>>     > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>     > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     >http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>     >
>>     > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Sep  4 02:44:30 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:44:30 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <54080A4E.3070508@wzb.eu>



Am 03.09.14 14:21, schrieb Pranesh Prakash:
> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]:
>> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the
>> permanent mandate of the IGF
>
> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>
> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should
> push for accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really
> going to help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA
> contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far,
> though the analogy is not perfect).


I think the analogy is somewhat misleading because it does not take into 
account the internal logics and dynamics of UN evaluation processes. The 
intergovernmental WSIS +10, a real u-turn in terms of  multistakeholder 
approaches but an important context for the evaluation of the IGF, 
offers a good example of those logics.

What I mean to say is that the 5 years mandate of the IGF does not 
provide for the kind of evaluation of the IGF that most people find 
necessary. It would be good to see the IGF reviewed on its own terms.
Do you really trust the UN to do this?
Given the terms of the WSIS+10, how likely is it to convince the UN to 
make the IGF evaluation process "more participative
 > and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder"?

I also agree with Stephanie that it would be good to think about review 
or evaluation mechanisms that are able to hold the IGF secretariat and 
the MAG to account.

All the questions you raise below are good ones but I think what you 
seem to imply is wrong. A thorough and comprehensive analysis would find 
more evidence for the IGF's impact than you see.

jeanette



   I would support making the
> evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) more participative
> and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>
> I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its
> mandate before we call for it to be made permanent.  For instance:
>
>    * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the
> stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and
> affordability of the Internet in the developing world?
>    * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from
> the use and misuse of the Internet?
>    * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant
> bodies?  If so, which issues and which bodies?
>    * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under their
> purview?  If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited from this
> interfacing?
>
> I believe that stability of the IGF is very important.  However, I think
> for stability to be achieved it is far more important to strengthen the
> IGF processes, making it more important, getting it (and people who wish
> to participate in it) greater funding, etc., than to make the IGF
> permanent.  I believe these (especially having a 5/10-year mandate and
> finances for the IGF secretariat) would do a great deal more to bringing
> stability to the IGF than making it permanent would.
>
> Apologies for sounding an off-note.
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-001 10:33:30 +0200]:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
>> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing
>> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>
>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able
>> to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a
>> statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days
>> available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an
>> all inclusive statement.)
>>
>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>> support in civil society.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From g.astbrink at gsa.com.au  Thu Sep  4 01:59:51 2014
From: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au (Gunela Astbrink)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:59:51 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] Invitation -  IGF WS99 Digital inclusion policies for
 the forgotten billion
Message-ID: <5407FFD7.2070704@gsa.com.au>

You are invited to participate in WS99 Digital inclusion policies for 
the forgotten billion in Workshop Room 01 (Rumeli Ground Floor / Room 
B1) at 4.30pm this afternoon.

This workshop will discuss the role of disability in the 
multi-stakeholder model. Perspectives will be provided from 
representatives of international organisations such as ICANN, ISOC, W3C, 
ITU and also insights from Asia and Africa.

Further information is at: 
http://2014.intgovforum.org/event/130507d2f324b731b232bb8f878d8087#.VAf5A0huGsF

Remote participation is at: 
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation-2014

We welcome your participation to find ways to ensure that the disability 
voice is heard in internet governance.

Regards,
Gunela Astbrink
Director, Internet Society of Australia

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Mon Sep  1 03:51:24 2014
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lorena_Jaume-Palas=ED?=)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:51:24 +0200
Subject: AW: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
Message-ID: <7r2hgr6a6ncwwukrnjc7wsgg.1409557884346@email.android.com>

Fully support the idea!
Lorena 




Von Samsung Galaxy Note gesendetJeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> hat geschrieben:Hi all,

at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that 
would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing 
its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.

Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other 
stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able 
to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical 
community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a 
statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days 
available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an 
all inclusive statement.)

Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only 
an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, 
with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your 
opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find 
support in civil society.

jeanette

P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email 
does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/85775432/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Sep  4 02:38:57 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:38:57 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>

On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)

I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.  You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would include that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from participation in this particular selection process".

Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.  Would be grateful for some more people to express their views here.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/3975dd77/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/3975dd77/attachment.sig>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Sep  4 02:52:54 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:52:54 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
Message-ID: <F743C564914A471885945667F82DEA15@Toshiba>

just to be clear on this – the statement below would only be when/if we formally announce our nominees – not every time they speak!

Ian

From: Jeremy Malcolm 
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:38 PM
To: Carlos A. Afonso 
Cc: Ian Peter ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:



  "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)


I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.  You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would include that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from participation in this particular selection process".

Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.  Would be grateful for some more people to express their views here.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/91f3d0a2/attachment.htm>

From deborah at apc.org  Thu Sep  4 03:05:08 2014
From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:05:08 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <F743C564914A471885945667F82DEA15@Toshiba>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org> <F743C564914A471885945667F82DEA15@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <54080F24.9070000@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi Jeremy,

The timeline on making a decision on this was not clear to me from
your email. You wrote:

The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for
nominations no earlier than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow
discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process.

I agree that there has not been enough discussion of this (nor time to
do so) but a concrete deadline might encourage this ;)

Best,
Deborah

On 9/4/14 9:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> just to be clear on this – the statement below would only be
> when/if we formally announce our nominees – not every time they
> speak!
> 
> Ian
> 
> From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:38 PM To:
> Carlos A. Afonso Cc: Ian Peter ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>  Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
> The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
> 
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF –
> so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)
> 
> 
> I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group
> yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.
> You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are
> refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes
> forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have
> to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would
> include that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out
> from participation in this particular selection process".
> 
> Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash
> our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I
> don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.
> Would be grateful for some more people to express their views
> here.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=rfXg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Sep  4 03:25:14 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:25:14 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <54080F24.9070000@apc.org>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org> <F743C564914A471885945667F82DEA15@Toshiba> <54080F24.9070000@apc.org>
Message-ID: <62047F103A2E4DB69ABAC2F22645FFE1@Toshiba>

Hi Deborah, I can answer this -

We need to put out a call for candidates ( if we are going to) on Friday 
(tomorrow) - no later. This is partly because for the next few days many 
people will be travelling so we do need to get underway and close off 
nominations about September 9-10.

Originally, we were asked to provide final selection of candidates by about 
Wednesday next week - clearly an impossibility. We have negotiated a 
deadline till September 21 to submit names, but will need all that time to 
collate names from various coalitions and make selections.

So really we need to decide whether to participate by tomorrow. - (or 
alternatively begin a selection process while we decide whether we are going 
to engage or not, which would be messy).

I hope this deadline helps to get some comments!

Ian

-----Original Message----- 
From: Deborah Brown
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:05 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and 
The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi Jeremy,

The timeline on making a decision on this was not clear to me from
your email. You wrote:

The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for
nominations no earlier than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow
discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process.

I agree that there has not been enough discussion of this (nor time to
do so) but a concrete deadline might encourage this ;)

Best,
Deborah

On 9/4/14 9:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> just to be clear on this – the statement below would only be
> when/if we formally announce our nominees – not every time they
> speak!
>
> Ian
>
> From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:38 PM To:
> Carlos A. Afonso Cc: Ian Peter ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>  Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
> The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF –
> so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)
>
>
> I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group
> yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.
> You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are
> refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes
> forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have
> to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would
> include that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out
> from participation in this particular selection process".
>
> Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash
> our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I
> don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.
> Would be grateful for some more people to express their views
> here.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=rfXg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 


From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Sep  4 03:40:01 2014
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:40:01 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
Message-ID: <54081751.7060907@cdt.org>


Hi Jeremy,

I always understood the CSCG as a facilitating function, enabling a more 
streamllined and representative way of ensuring appropriate 
representation of CS on various iniatives, committes, etc.  If a 
particular party to the CSCG does not wish to participate in a 
particular process that should not prevent other CSCG organizations from 
participating through the CSCG function if they wish. Alternatively, it 
should be agreed that once one entity opts not to participate then the 
CSCG can no longer serve its function for that particular selection 
process, etc.  I am agnostic either way.

There are divergent opinions on the NMI or whatever it may be called - 
but I also believe that we have already had an impact on the process and 
not to participate through the 6 month "trial period" would, I think, be 
a mistake.

Thanks!

Matthew

On 9/4/2014 9:38 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca 
> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>
>> "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – 
>> so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)
>
> I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group 
> yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.  You 
> have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are refusing to 
> support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes forward with 
> nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have to be on the 
> basis that any public statement of our nominees would include that 
> "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from 
> participation in this particular selection process".
>
> Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash our 
> hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I don't have 
> a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.  Would be grateful 
> for some more people to express their views here.
>
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/f581d03c/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Sep  4 03:41:53 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 04:41:53 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Mistaken interpretation of Marco Civil re net neutrality
Message-ID: <540817C1.2060801@cafonso.ca>

[Sorry for possible duplications]

Dear people,

In the main session on net neutrality yesterday afternoon (3/sept), we 
have heard some wrong interpretations of the Civil Rights Framework for 
the Internet in Brazil (known as "Marco Civil"), a charter of principles 
which is now a law in Brazil, in effect since June 23rd (60 days after 
publication in the Official Daily). These mistaken interpretations 
basically said that the entire net neutrality framework is to be decided 
by the president of Brazil.

Article 9 of Marco Civil, dealing with net neutrality, is quite clear, 
and I request you to read (or re-read) it below. The only two instances 
in which further regulation may be required (and this only after 
consulting with CGI.br and the telco regulator) are specified in para 2 
and refer to prioritization of emergency services and technical 
requirements essential for the adequate provision of services and 
applications, and these cannot violate paras 2 and 3 of article 9.

I would appreciate if you could circulate this message among your peers 
who may have similar doubts. I noticed this seems to be a confusion 
which spread among some Latin Americans in the IGF and has been 
expressed in other meetings here at the IGF, which I find extremely curious.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

=======================

Article 9. The agent in charge of transmission, switching or routing is 
obliged to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, 
origin and destination, service, terminal or application.

§ 1st Discrimination or degradation of traffic will be regulated in 
accordance to the private assignments of the President of the Republic 
provided in item IV of the Article 84 of the Constitution, to the 
faithful implementation of this Law, being heard the Internet Steering 
Committee (CGI.br) and the National Agency of Telecommunications 
(Anatel), and may only arise from:

I – technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of 
services and applications; and

II – emergency services prioritization.

§ 2nd In the event of discrimination or degradation of traffic referred 
to in paragraph 1, the aforementioned agent must:

I – refrain from causing damage to users, as regarded in article 927 of 
the Civil Code;

II – act with proportionality, transparency and equality;

III – inform the users in advance in a transparent, clear and 
sufficiently descriptive manner to its the management practices and 
traffic mitigation adopted, including those related to network security; and

IV – provide services on non-discriminatory commercial conditions and 
refrain from practicing anticompetitive practices.

§ 3rd In the provision of Internet connection, onerous or for free, as 
well as in the transmission, switching or routing, it is forbidden to 
block, monitor, filter or analyse the contents of data packets, 
respected the provisions of this article.

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Sep  4 04:04:52 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:04:52 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Mistaken interpretation of Marco Civil re net
 neutrality
In-Reply-To: <540817C1.2060801@cafonso.ca>
References: <540817C1.2060801@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <C0B615EE-F928-47E5-80DF-6F1442344357@cafonso.ca>

Sorry, I meant para 1. Corrected below.

Thx

--c.a.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 04/09/2014, at 10:41, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> 
> [Sorry for possible duplications]
> 
> Dear people,
> 
> In the main session on net neutrality yesterday afternoon (3/sept), we have heard some wrong interpretations of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil (known as "Marco Civil"), a charter of principles which is now a law in Brazil, in effect since June 23rd (60 days after publication in the Official Daily). These mistaken interpretations basically said that the entire net neutrality framework is to be decided by the president of Brazil.
> 
> Article 9 of Marco Civil, dealing with net neutrality, is quite clear, and I request you to read (or re-read) it below. The only two instances in which further regulation may be required (and this only after consulting with CGI.br and the telco regulator) are specified in para 1 and refer to prioritization of emergency services and technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of services and applications, and these cannot violate paras 2 and 3 of article 9.
> 
> I would appreciate if you could circulate this message among your peers who may have similar doubts. I noticed this seems to be a confusion which spread among some Latin Americans in the IGF and has been expressed in other meetings here at the IGF, which I find extremely curious.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> =======================
> 
> Article 9. The agent in charge of transmission, switching or routing is obliged to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application.
> 
> § 1st Discrimination or degradation of traffic will be regulated in accordance to the private assignments of the President of the Republic provided in item IV of the Article 84 of the Constitution, to the faithful implementation of this Law, being heard the Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and the National Agency of Telecommunications (Anatel), and may only arise from:
> 
> I – technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of services and applications; and
> 
> II – emergency services prioritization.
> 
> § 2nd In the event of discrimination or degradation of traffic referred to in paragraph 1, the aforementioned agent must:
> 
> I – refrain from causing damage to users, as regarded in article 927 of the Civil Code;
> 
> II – act with proportionality, transparency and equality;
> 
> III – inform the users in advance in a transparent, clear and sufficiently descriptive manner to its the management practices and traffic mitigation adopted, including those related to network security; and
> 
> IV – provide services on non-discriminatory commercial conditions and refrain from practicing anticompetitive practices.
> 
> § 3rd In the provision of Internet connection, onerous or for free, as well as in the transmission, switching or routing, it is forbidden to block, monitor, filter or analyse the contents of data packets, respected the provisions of this article.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From andrew at gp-digital.org  Thu Sep  4 04:06:08 2014
From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:06:08 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <54081751.7060907@cdt.org>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org>
	<EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba>
	<153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca>
	<D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
	<54081751.7060907@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAOi1r6bMomgrnOjdt_J_9JFvAvCR14CeRFXTYBe=qH43p9gKew@mail.gmail.com>

+1. I have doubts this initiative will lead anywhere and I don't see it as
a home for post NetMundial discussions but I see no harm in CS reps
participating for 6 months to see where it goes

On Thursday, 4 September 2014, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I always understood the CSCG as a facilitating function, enabling a more
> streamllined and representative way of ensuring appropriate representation
> of CS on various iniatives, committes, etc.  If a particular party to the
> CSCG does not wish to participate in a particular process that should not
> prevent other CSCG organizations from participating through the CSCG
> function if they wish.   Alternatively, it should be agreed that once one
> entity opts not to participate then the CSCG can no longer serve its
> function for that particular selection process, etc.  I am agnostic either
> way.
>
> There are divergent opinions on the NMI or whatever it may be called - but
> I also believe that we have already had an impact on the process and not to
> participate through the 6 month "trial period" would, I think, be a mistake.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matthew
>
> On 9/4/2014 9:38 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ca at cafonso.ca');>> wrote:
>
>  "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I
> think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)
>
>
>  I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group yet
> about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.  You have, by
> now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are refusing to support the
> initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes forward with nominating
> candidates at all, it would therefore have to be on the basis that any
> public statement of our nominees would include that "although JNC is a
> member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from participation in this particular
> selection process".
>
>  Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash our
> hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I don't have a
> good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.  Would be grateful for
> some more people to express their views here.
>
>   --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jmalcolm at eff.org');>
>
>  Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
>  :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');>.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mshears at cdt.org');>
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>

-- 

*Andrew Puddephatt*
Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/510106c6/attachment.htm>

From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Thu Sep  4 04:41:04 2014
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:41:04 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
Message-ID: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Dear all,

I think it is crucial that we agree on the IGF BestBIts statement so
that we can publish it today for sign on and present it tomorrow at
the last day of the IGF.

Pad is here: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y Statement is from
line 330 - 345.

Text is underneath.

Best,

- -Niels

We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
reaffirm that human rights and sustainable development are underlying
concerns for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
this 2014 IGF in Istanbul we wish to in particular to:

1. Call for the establishment of the IGF as a multistakeholder forum
within the framework of the United Nations with an open-ended mandate,
that should be reformed and strengthened.

2. Call for more thorough and timely review of the IGF post-Istanbul
(rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at potential
changes that could lead to its further strengthening.

3 . Support the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the
Internet - known as the NETMundial and its recommendations for the IGF.

4. Commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap set in its
outcome document by, for example, focusing on net neutrality, and ask
the MAG, UNDESA and Brazil - the host of the 2015 IGF - to build on
this roadmap, and to build upon the regional and national IGFs as core
opportunities that feed into this process.

5. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken into
account, by way of a more structured consultation process and allowing
civil society to appoint its own representatives and speakers.

6. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of
expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation
to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits
welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish
civil society organizations to address this threat to human rights.

- -- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCCWgAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpiO8IAIxYLHbXNl0nwKnw1mTZsfqw
PKErbCgUoJkG4wtnIeKgkauWwp8BOR+BumA7anY0BMkizRFjFfzrAG/8sOHmOUTg
+1FIz+DCWHcdmhqZTwlUGmiyV3G5KOT1gJ9x+Gy9wfH065/ZspBxKByYVvKNu1Jw
KpA89WxtuszAUV2inoabS2dGmEPVwLG3SrCuv4P52aCxRWZPquN3qO2m09B5vXo1
1lvp3ztIVYOvwMqQmOeYwRRboBNzPvF9XTc2hTB2mHL9azkuDyjbhsKpXBJenqcF
Cy2cVE5n2Mek6wdkN/3yMjq8JyvkwPFAGLyEZPfTXajr3fZgUEG+CqofPfzIMSA=
=5Qcz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From joy at apc.org  Thu Sep  4 04:52:25 2014
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 20:52:25 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
In-Reply-To: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org>
References: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org>
Message-ID: <54082849.3030307@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/c6634e6c/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Mon Sep  1 03:53:39 2014
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 04:53:39 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com>

Agree.

At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:

"There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working
group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will
be
implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia:
a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative
ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy
options;
b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including
through a broadened donor base, is essential;
d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions
between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long
standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
identification of
possible ways to address them."

We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a
permanent body instead of  renewing its mandate for another limited term of
5 or 10 years."

1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.

best

joana


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé <joao.caribe at me.com>
wrote:

> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count me
> on to support as I can.
>
> _
> João Carlos Caribé
> (021) 8761 1967
> (021) 4042 7727
> Skype joaocaribe
> Enviado via iPad
>
> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> escreveu:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
> >
> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
> statement.)
> >
> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
> support in civil society.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/53eded9f/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Sep  4 06:02:42 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:02:42 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <54081751.7060907@cdt.org>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org> <54081751.7060907@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <540838C2.1000808@wzb.eu>

Hi,

my opinion is that a civil society selection committee for Internet 
governance bodies and processes should have some general criteria about 
which requests for selecting candidates it takes on.

Aside from these general criteria it should refrain from making 
political judgements about the process or structure for which it selects 
candidates. Otherwise it risks losing the trust and support from the 
groups on whose behalf it serves.
A second point, if the opposition of one member of the the CSCG would be 
enough for the SCSG to do its work, this would lend a very strong veto 
power to single members. In that case we would need a discussion of 
which groups and political positions we want to see represented on the SCSG.

On a more general note, for the SCSG to fulfil its (growing) 
responsibility, it needs clear rules and procedures that ensure reliable 
results - its accountability to us, the community.

jeanette


Am 04.09.14 09:40, schrieb Matthew Shears:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I always understood the CSCG as a facilitating function, enabling a more
> streamllined and representative way of ensuring appropriate
> representation of CS on various iniatives, committes, etc.  If a
> particular party to the CSCG does not wish to participate in a
> particular process that should not prevent other CSCG organizations from
> participating through the CSCG function if they wish. Alternatively, it
> should be agreed that once one entity opts not to participate then the
> CSCG can no longer serve its function for that particular selection
> process, etc.  I am agnostic either way.
>
> There are divergent opinions on the NMI or whatever it may be called -
> but I also believe that we have already had an impact on the process and
> not to participate through the 6 month "trial period" would, I think, be
> a mistake.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matthew
>
> On 9/4/2014 9:38 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
>> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>> "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF –
>>> so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)
>>
>> I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group
>> yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.  You
>> have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are refusing to
>> support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes forward with
>> nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have to be on the
>> basis that any public statement of our nominees would include that
>> "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from
>> participation in this particular selection process".
>>
>> Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash our
>> hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I don't have
>> a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.  Would be grateful
>> for some more people to express their views here.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From dixie at gp-digital.org  Thu Sep  4 05:12:40 2014
From: dixie at gp-digital.org (Dixie Hawtin)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:12:40 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
In-Reply-To: <54082849.3030307@apc.org>
References: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <54082849.3030307@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com>

So do I!


On 4 September 2014 11:52, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

>  Hi Niels - I agree with this and happy for it to be published for sign on
> Joy
>
> On 4/09/2014 8:41 p.m., Niels ten Oever wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I think it is crucial that we agree on the IGF BestBIts statement so
> that we can publish it today for sign on and present it tomorrow at
> the last day of the IGF.
>
> Pad is here: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y Statement is from
> line 330 - 345.
>
> Text is underneath.
>
> Best,
>
> -Niels
>
> We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
> reaffirm that human rights and sustainable development are underlying
> concerns for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
> this 2014 IGF in Istanbul we wish to in particular to:
>
> 1. Call for the establishment of the IGF as a multistakeholder forum
> within the framework of the United Nations with an open-ended mandate,
> that should be reformed and strengthened.
>
> 2. Call for more thorough and timely review of the IGF post-Istanbul
> (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at potential
> changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
>
> 3 . Support the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the
> Internet - known as the NETMundial and its recommendations for the IGF.
>
> 4. Commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap set in its
> outcome document by, for example, focusing on net neutrality, and ask
> the MAG, UNDESA and Brazil - the host of the 2015 IGF - to build on
> this roadmap, and to build upon the regional and national IGFs as core
> opportunities that feed into this process.
>
> 5. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
> ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken into
> account, by way of a more structured consultation process and allowing
> civil society to appoint its own representatives and speakers.
>
> 6. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of
> expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation
> to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits
> welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish
> civil society organizations to address this threat to human rights.
>
>  >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 

*Dixie Hawtin*

Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0338 | M: +44 (0)7769 181556 | Skype: dixie.hawtin

gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/fc69bcf8/attachment.htm>

From anne at webfoundation.org  Thu Sep  4 05:16:38 2014
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:16:38 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
In-Reply-To: <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <54082849.3030307@apc.org>
 <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbFuLSeis69oWhtbmjTUrLSC3X=yfBLidXUHsudeW0R5zg@mail.gmail.com>

+1. It is really important to be able to present it tomorrow, particularly
the statement re Turkey.
WF is happy with the draft as it stands (although the word order of point
no 1 could be improved so that it's clear it's the IGF that needs
strengthening and improving, not the mandate).
Best
Anne


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Dixie Hawtin <dixie at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> So do I!
>
>
> On 4 September 2014 11:52, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Niels - I agree with this and happy for it to be published for sign on
>> Joy
>>
>> On 4/09/2014 8:41 p.m., Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I think it is crucial that we agree on the IGF BestBIts statement so
>> that we can publish it today for sign on and present it tomorrow at
>> the last day of the IGF.
>>
>> Pad is here: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y Statement is from
>> line 330 - 345.
>>
>> Text is underneath.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -Niels
>>
>> We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
>> reaffirm that human rights and sustainable development are underlying
>> concerns for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
>> this 2014 IGF in Istanbul we wish to in particular to:
>>
>> 1. Call for the establishment of the IGF as a multistakeholder forum
>> within the framework of the United Nations with an open-ended mandate,
>> that should be reformed and strengthened.
>>
>> 2. Call for more thorough and timely review of the IGF post-Istanbul
>> (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at potential
>> changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
>>
>> 3 . Support the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the
>> Internet - known as the NETMundial and its recommendations for the IGF.
>>
>> 4. Commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap set in its
>> outcome document by, for example, focusing on net neutrality, and ask
>> the MAG, UNDESA and Brazil - the host of the 2015 IGF - to build on
>> this roadmap, and to build upon the regional and national IGFs as core
>> opportunities that feed into this process.
>>
>> 5. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
>> ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken into
>> account, by way of a more structured consultation process and allowing
>> civil society to appoint its own representatives and speakers.
>>
>> 6. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of
>> expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation
>> to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits
>> welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish
>> civil society organizations to address this threat to human rights.
>>
>>  >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Dixie Hawtin*
>
> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0338 | M: +44 (0)7769 181556 | Skype: dixie.hawtin
>
> gp-digital.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://www.webfoundation.org/> |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/321052f0/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 05:40:41 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:40:41 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <54081751.7060907@cdt.org>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org> <54081751.7060907@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <F93B811D-1796-48D3-B18D-3964E701E5A2@gmail.com>

Hi

I agree with Matt, those who want to do something are free to and those who don’t are free not to, this is as it has always been and it shouldn’t be changed going forward, we don’t have to move toward forced uniformity simply because the CSCG was created.  Coordinate common approaches where people agree, not where they don’t.

Meanwhile, CS just missed an opportunity in the main session on ecosystem and IG reform to do a coordinated push for the sorts of things advocated in the caucus for a decade re: intersessional work, outcomes, and bringing NM-type processes into a day of the Brazil meeting.

Bill

On Sep 4, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> 
> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> I always understood the CSCG as a facilitating function, enabling a more streamllined and representative way of ensuring appropriate representation of CS on various iniatives, committes, etc.  If a particular party to the CSCG does not wish to participate in a particular process that should not prevent other CSCG organizations from participating through the CSCG function if they wish.   Alternatively, it should be agreed that once one entity opts not to participate then the CSCG can no longer serve its function for that particular selection process, etc.  I am agnostic either way.  
> 
> There are divergent opinions on the NMI or whatever it may be called - but I also believe that we have already had an impact on the process and not to participate through the 6 month "trial period" would, I think, be a mistake.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 9/4/2014 9:38 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)
>> 
>> I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.  You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would include that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from participation in this particular selection process".
>> 
>> Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.  Would be grateful for some more people to express their views here.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>> 
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> 
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/aa758a8d/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 05:49:50 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:49:50 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>,<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com> <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <BEB8588F-857E-4EDB-87AE-C5CE1D2B962E@gmail.com>

On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> Split the difference.
> 
> Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation in IGF; 

The UN GA would do that for us, so why would do it and disarm at the front end?  As for 10, you get 5.   That’s the point of asking for a permanent mandate, so when there’s push back and control agendas and conditions being proposed and tactical linkages being made to residual intergovernmental enhanced cooperation plays in exchange for a five year extension we can negotiate to a higher middle ground of ten.

Why anyone would think that keeping the UNGA in a position of being able to kick the IGF around every five years and the DESA in a position to micromanage based on institutional weakness is a path to some higher level of accountability is really beyond me.

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/920d6568/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 06:04:41 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 06:04:41 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
Message-ID: <1tbepi7nyn6qdxfkfr6b95t4.1409825080375@email.android.com>

I agree with Matthew as well

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org> </div><div>Date:09/04/2014  4:06 AM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> </div><div>Cc: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> </div><div>Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial </div><div>
</div>+1. I have doubts this initiative will lead anywhere and I don't see it as a home for post NetMundial discussions but I see no harm in CS reps participating for 6 months to see where it goes

On Thursday, 4 September 2014, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

Hi Jeremy,

I always understood the CSCG as a facilitating function, enabling a more streamllined and representative way of ensuring appropriate representation of CS on various iniatives, committes, etc.  If a particular party to the CSCG does not wish to participate in a particular process that should not prevent other CSCG organizations from participating through the CSCG function if they wish.   Alternatively, it should be agreed that once one entity opts not to participate then the CSCG can no longer serve its function for that particular selection process, etc.  I am agnostic either way.  

There are divergent opinions on the NMI or whatever it may be called - but I also believe that we have already had an impact on the process and not to participate through the 6 month "trial period"     would, I think, be a mistake.

Thanks!

Matthew

On 9/4/2014 9:38 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

"The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)

I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.  You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would include that "although JNC is a         member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from participation in this particular selection process".

Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion         lies.  Would be grateful for some more people to express their views here.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987


-- 
Andrew Puddephatt
Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/1cf439b3/attachment.htm>

From dave at difference.com.au  Thu Sep  4 06:37:51 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:37:51 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <226E506B-114B-46DE-B68F-2462F3240F5A@difference.com.au>


On 1 Sep 2014, at 11:38 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously.

It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature.

	In the panel today about the ICANN Affirmation of Commitments agreement with the US (and how it might be globalised), I made the point that I had participated in one of ICANNs Affirmation of Commitments Review Teams, and absolutely nothing about that 18 month or so process was effected by the US special role in mandating that review. Sometimes, while ICANNs US status might not be ideal, it can be tolerated because the practical consequences of that relationship are very minimal, certainly easily tolerable, in many practical situations. The same applies to IGFs UN status (which brings a range of restrictions on what can be talked about, not to mention a guarantee of dull ministerial speeches).
	While mindful of the symbolic issues, I think George is pointing out that closer links with the UN has some real practical consequences, that may decrease the openness of the IGF, because there are gatekeepers to participation in UN processes.
	I assume your mention of the WEF is somewhat facetious given your opposition to the WEF, but I think it s worth examining why. From my point of view, the openness to participation of multi-stakeholder processes is vital. Sure, regular, ongoing participation in something like ICANN requires funding, with all the issues that raises. But literally physical participation is open to anyone who can physically turn up to meetings, and remote participation can reach anyone with internet access. The is quite emphatically not the case with WEF - if I happened to be having a holiday in the Swiss Alps, I couldn't just pop by Davos. I don't think opposition to WEF for its symbolic role (association with neo-liberal trade policies, association with wealthy elites at ski resorts, etc) is particularly valuable -- after all, the IGF is a broad multistakeholder meeting that is supposed to have a very wide range of stakeholders and views presented, so the WEF should be as welcome to participate as any other stakeholder. IGF should not be for the elite represented by WEF, but it should include those elite views along with the bottom up. But we should be wary of WEF processes because its global forum model is NOT open, and the IGF (as with other multistakeholder processess) should be as open as we can make it.
	I accept Parminders concerns about WEF being highly problematic despite its multi-stakeholder nature, as its a gated forum, an echo chamber for a particular ideology, but I don't accept that this is an intrinsic problem with multi-stakeholderism -  rather I think it shows that openness, transparency, and accountability are essential tools to keep multi-stakeholder processes working for the public interest.

	David



parminder


On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF
totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on
IGF.
Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also
long  time to take decisions due to consultations to any government,
besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily
report.
Better not to go through this path.
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464







On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:

All,

There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is
not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions
regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions
made by the UN General Assembly.

Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a
non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006)
that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the
time who were working the event were told to let management know if he
showed up so that he could be denied admission.

Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was
finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to
further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This
delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code
TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.

I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are
probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.

So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are
not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic,
bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not
increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN
administration/control/funding of future IGFs.

George




On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming
a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from
other sources.

--c.a.

On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
I support the call.

It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
stable source of funding.

BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated
body
with institutional funding.

Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN,
measure.

parminder

On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.

WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
funding that is transparently accounted for.

cheers
Anne




On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
<ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:

   I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
   final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
   should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
   IGFs.

   e

   Eduardo


   On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
   <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:

       Agree.

       At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:

       "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
       (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
       UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
       that these recommendations will be
       implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
       inter-alia:
       a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
       creative
       ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
       policy options;
       b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
       c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
       IGF, including
       through a broadened donor base, is essential;
       d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
       discussions
       between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
       A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
       discussing both long
       standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
       the identification of
       possible ways to address them."

       We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
       IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
       another limited term of 5 or 10 years."

       1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.

       best

       joana


       On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
       <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:

           Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
           this idea count me on to support as I can.

           _
           João Carlos Caribé
           (021) 8761 1967
           (021) 4042 7727
           Skype joaocaribe
           Enviado via iPad

           > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
           <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
           >
           > Hi all,
           >
           > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
           BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
           permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
           limited term of 5 or 10 years.
           > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
           BB meeting.
           >
           > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
           with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
           impression that we might be able to draft a
           cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
           community and the private sector. (Individual governments
           support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
           possible within the few days available to coordiante
           enough signatures by governments to make this an all
           inclusive statement.)
           >
           > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
           this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
           within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
           bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
           find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
           support in civil society.
           >
           > jeanette
           >
           > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
           If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
           someone be so kind to forward it?
           >
____________________________________________________________
           > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
           > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
           <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
           > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
           > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


____________________________________________________________
           You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
           bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
           <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
           To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
           http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




       --         --
       Joana Varon Ferraz
       @joana_varon
       PGP 0x016B8E73



       ____________________________________________________________
       You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
       To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



   ____________________________________________________________
   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
   bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
   To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
   http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




--
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema
*
*
*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
<http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/582061cd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/582061cd/attachment.sig>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Sep  4 07:03:38 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 14:03:38 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbFuLSeis69oWhtbmjTUrLSC3X=yfBLidXUHsudeW0R5zg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <54082849.3030307@apc.org> <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFuLSeis69oWhtbmjTUrLSC3X=yfBLidXUHsudeW0R5zg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A14F7DC-83C3-47E6-9579-68F8053B55EE@eff.org>

On Sep 4, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:

> +1. It is really important to be able to present it tomorrow, particularly the statement re Turkey. 
> WF is happy with the draft as it stands (although the word order of point no 1 could be improved so that it's clear it's the IGF that needs strengthening and improving, not the mandate).

I apologise for the delay.  There was some time needed to tie up loose ends of wording and to check with the steering committee that we are indeed ready to post it.  So here it is now for endorsement:

http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/

If I have made any errors please advise me.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/88a5d1e2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/88a5d1e2/attachment.sig>

From bkilic at citizen.org  Thu Sep  4 07:37:27 2014
From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:37:27 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony
Message-ID: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org>


Dear Bestbits friends, 

Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind words -- very much appreciated. 

I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the issues we care. Please send me your suggestions. 

Best, 

Burcu



From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Sep  4 07:39:29 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 14:39:29 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony
In-Reply-To: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org>
References: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org>
Message-ID: <ABA697F2-A20B-40BA-B8DB-B9DBD224E9C2@cafonso.ca>

Great news! :)

sent from a dumbphone

> On 04/09/2014, at 14:37, Burcu Kilic <bkilic at citizen.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Bestbits friends, 
> 
> Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind words -- very much appreciated. 
> 
> I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the issues we care. Please send me your suggestions. 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Burcu
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu  Mon Sep  1 04:00:42 2014
From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:00:42 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com>
 <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com>

I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial final
declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF should do better in
linking its agenda and wok with the regional IGFs.

e

Eduardo


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Agree.
>
> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>
> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
> Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working
> group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will
> be
> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia:
> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative
> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy
> options;
> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF,
> including
> through a broadened donor base, is essential;
> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions
> between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both
> long
> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
> identification of
> possible ways to address them."
>
> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a
> permanent body instead of  renewing its mandate for another limited term of
> 5 or 10 years."
>
> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>
> best
>
> joana
>
>
>  On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé <joao.caribe at me.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count me
>> on to support as I can.
>>
>> _
>> João Carlos Caribé
>> (021) 8761 1967
>> (021) 4042 7727
>> Skype joaocaribe
>> Enviado via iPad
>>
>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> escreveu:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement
>> that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing
>> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>> >
>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
>> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
>> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
>> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
>> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
>> statement.)
>> >
>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>> support in civil society.
>> >
>> > jeanette
>> >
>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/5ac4e475/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Sep  4 07:46:43 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 21:46:43 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <62047F103A2E4DB69ABAC2F22645FFE1@Toshiba>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org> <F743C564914A471885945667F82DEA15@Toshiba> <54080F24.9070000@apc.org> <62047F103A2E4DB69ABAC2F22645FFE1@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <4FCA0958710E47B9AFEE527A104BC97D@Toshiba>

I'm cross posting this here because  it was suggested I do this, after I 
originally posted this to the CSCG list. To give context - some of our 
members are concerned that there hasnt been enough discussion and want to 
delay consideration until we have clarity about WEF's objectives and plans, 
intentions etc, and formally announce their intentions including decoupling 
from NetMundial. I suggested those in Istanbul seek another meeting if 
possible to clarify matters; but after some thought I posted this. I think 
this explains where we are at from my perspective.

Thinking more about this -

while I would still urge you to meet with WEF and seek more clarity, I think 
our dilemma is this.

WEF dont want to be clear about the process because they want it to be seen 
that the incoming committee defines the process. So we are in a Catch-22 
here – it they define it, they are not being bottom-up, if they don’t, we 
don’t think we have enough clarity to participate.

WEF want to move quickly so they have something to show for their efforts. 
they expect to have all other committee members in place next week, the only 
exception being civil society. They have agreed to us having more time, and 
also to us choosing all CS members. Now if we ask for more time, they will 
see the strength of the project and their commitments at risk and our 
involvement as unreliable.

This is particularly so because we really dont know how much time it would 
take us to decide whether we want to commit or not. I doubt there will be 
any more clarity in one week, or three weeks, or 3 months. So I actually 
think we might have a lot to lose by delaying, and nothing to gain. The 
nature of this initiative as something new and outside our normal range of 
experience means that we probably have to take a risk, or alternatively 
determine right now to disengage.

I think we should take that risk, and stick to our timetable or something 
workable very close to it. In doing so, to minimise our risk, we can 
continue to engage and select candidates, but communicate with this process 
some misgivings and concerns. We can indicate an intention to withdraw 
unless certain developments are committed to.

So by all means talk to them about more time, but I am not sure whether it 
will help. I know that things are difficult at IGF with so many meetings and 
poor wifi, and if it helps we could delay a couple of days and shorten the 
nomination period. But to be honest I dont think we are going to have any 
more clarity then, or within a month. So we may have to engage and be part 
of the development, rather than waiting to react to something which really 
shouldn’t be developed much further without our involvement anyway.

Typical difficulties at the beginning. I understand the caution. Let’s use 
the caution to define our concerns and communicate them as we engage. That’s 
my thoughts, but the decision is yours.

Ian


-----Original Message----- 
From: Ian Peter
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:25 PM
To: Deborah Brown ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and 
The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

Hi Deborah, I can answer this -

We need to put out a call for candidates ( if we are going to) on Friday
(tomorrow) - no later. This is partly because for the next few days many
people will be travelling so we do need to get underway and close off
nominations about September 9-10.

Originally, we were asked to provide final selection of candidates by about
Wednesday next week - clearly an impossibility. We have negotiated a
deadline till September 21 to submit names, but will need all that time to
collate names from various coalitions and make selections.

So really we need to decide whether to participate by tomorrow. - (or
alternatively begin a selection process while we decide whether we are going
to engage or not, which would be messy).

I hope this deadline helps to get some comments!

Ian

-----Original Message----- 
From: Deborah Brown
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:05 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi Jeremy,

The timeline on making a decision on this was not clear to me from
your email. You wrote:

The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for
nominations no earlier than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow
discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process.

I agree that there has not been enough discussion of this (nor time to
do so) but a concrete deadline might encourage this ;)

Best,
Deborah

On 9/4/14 9:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> just to be clear on this – the statement below would only be
> when/if we formally announce our nominees – not every time they
> speak!
>
> Ian
>
> From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:38 PM To:
> Carlos A. Afonso Cc: Ian Peter ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>  Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
> The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF –
> so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)
>
>
> I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group
> yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.
> You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are
> refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes
> forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have
> to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would
> include that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out
> from participation in this particular selection process".
>
> Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash
> our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I
> don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.
> Would be grateful for some more people to express their views
> here.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=rfXg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits







____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 


From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Thu Sep  4 08:17:46 2014
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:17:46 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony
In-Reply-To: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org>
References: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org>
Message-ID: <5408586A.4010502@digitaldissidents.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Burcu,

It would be great if you could make the points mentioned in the Best
Bits statement: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/

Personally I would really appreciate it if you could make a strong
reference to the situation in Turkey and perhaps also refer to the
situation in Azerbaijan that worsened since the the IGF was organized
there.

Best,

Niels

- -- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 09/04/2014 02:37 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote:
> 
> Dear Bestbits friends,
> 
> Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am
> pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing
> ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind
> words -- very much appreciated.
> 
> I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the
> issues we care. Please send me your suggestions.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Burcu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCFhqAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpDdgH/0S6lqFkYjJ/xkIRHoA+HfQ1
6R7vPLX8y9g1Nw3YEs7bdmzPeT/eXcXt5HaWYxIHd8Eis9WlxsAO8Sb9QJiV0JSS
8ZwHoS6aQVD1YBrkw1kAqCQ9FCHIYQ8ORvW6etlao6b4Cf9P2wsBRIBXP4yRhx4E
AA7LaniMt3KKSTp2vaisjCCWnCt6QhE5CZ/eeP86uZFukkQqKJa+ziy71v9c0Ygv
fpUyytERaMTzQ4GoVr4nER3Tqc4ig/WsjfiPkqDxyjHighS+gTkZl4fsycwhhdOL
9YtAOfWHu1oooBSTxtYdEQJQNP22O56D5psUENB1Wh8zd8Mmg/+CcU5oPed8HbA=
=o/f5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From brett at accessnow.org  Thu Sep  4 08:20:13 2014
From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 15:20:13 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <4FCA0958710E47B9AFEE527A104BC97D@Toshiba>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org> <F743C564914A471885945667F82DEA15@Toshiba> <54080F24.9070000@apc.org> <62047F103A2E4DB69ABAC2F22645FFE1@Toshiba> <4FCA0958710E47B9AFEE527A104BC97D@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <E19F2C82-1311-46D7-A690-4974352DDCC0@accessnow.org>

Hey,

Sorry to be quiet on this. I made a decision (as per Anja's comments on day 0) that I would not let the NMI take the wind out of my IGF. Like many others I have lots of things on my agenda which I have been focusing on. 

On process, my concern is that the CS coordinating body seems to be taking on a decision making role as to whether we should attend rather than who should attend once a decision has made to attend. 

With respect to participating I get the sense that governments and companies are v skeptical. So I'm not sure why civil society is rushing to put names forward. I have been invited to be on the Steering Committee and have not yet communicated with then about which way I will go, though I have indicated to Jeremy in Geneva that I would be open to the CSCG process. I will certainly keep you posted with my thinking as it emerges. 

Brett 

Sent from my phone 

> On Sep 4, 2014, at 2:46 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm cross posting this here because  it was suggested I do this, after I originally posted this to the CSCG list. To give context - some of our members are concerned that there hasnt been enough discussion and want to delay consideration until we have clarity about WEF's objectives and plans, intentions etc, and formally announce their intentions including decoupling from NetMundial. I suggested those in Istanbul seek another meeting if possible to clarify matters; but after some thought I posted this. I think this explains where we are at from my perspective.
> 
> Thinking more about this -
> 
> while I would still urge you to meet with WEF and seek more clarity, I think our dilemma is this.
> 
> WEF dont want to be clear about the process because they want it to be seen that the incoming committee defines the process. So we are in a Catch-22 here – it they define it, they are not being bottom-up, if they don’t, we don’t think we have enough clarity to participate.
> 
> WEF want to move quickly so they have something to show for their efforts. they expect to have all other committee members in place next week, the only exception being civil society. They have agreed to us having more time, and also to us choosing all CS members. Now if we ask for more time, they will see the strength of the project and their commitments at risk and our involvement as unreliable.
> 
> This is particularly so because we really dont know how much time it would take us to decide whether we want to commit or not. I doubt there will be any more clarity in one week, or three weeks, or 3 months. So I actually think we might have a lot to lose by delaying, and nothing to gain. The nature of this initiative as something new and outside our normal range of experience means that we probably have to take a risk, or alternatively determine right now to disengage.
> 
> I think we should take that risk, and stick to our timetable or something workable very close to it. In doing so, to minimise our risk, we can continue to engage and select candidates, but communicate with this process some misgivings and concerns. We can indicate an intention to withdraw unless certain developments are committed to.
> 
> So by all means talk to them about more time, but I am not sure whether it will help. I know that things are difficult at IGF with so many meetings and poor wifi, and if it helps we could delay a couple of days and shorten the nomination period. But to be honest I dont think we are going to have any more clarity then, or within a month. So we may have to engage and be part of the development, rather than waiting to react to something which really shouldn’t be developed much further without our involvement anyway.
> 
> Typical difficulties at the beginning. I understand the caution. Let’s use the caution to define our concerns and communicate them as we engage. That’s my thoughts, but the decision is yours.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: Deborah Brown ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
> 
> Hi Deborah, I can answer this -
> 
> We need to put out a call for candidates ( if we are going to) on Friday
> (tomorrow) - no later. This is partly because for the next few days many
> people will be travelling so we do need to get underway and close off
> nominations about September 9-10.
> 
> Originally, we were asked to provide final selection of candidates by about
> Wednesday next week - clearly an impossibility. We have negotiated a
> deadline till September 21 to submit names, but will need all that time to
> collate names from various coalitions and make selections.
> 
> So really we need to decide whether to participate by tomorrow. - (or
> alternatively begin a selection process while we decide whether we are going
> to engage or not, which would be messy).
> 
> I hope this deadline helps to get some comments!
> 
> Ian
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Deborah Brown
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:05 PM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
> The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> The timeline on making a decision on this was not clear to me from
> your email. You wrote:
> 
> The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for
> nominations no earlier than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow
> discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process.
> 
> I agree that there has not been enough discussion of this (nor time to
> do so) but a concrete deadline might encourage this ;)
> 
> Best,
> Deborah
> 
>> On 9/4/14 9:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> just to be clear on this – the statement below would only be
>> when/if we formally announce our nominees – not every time they
>> speak!
>> 
>> Ian
>> 
>> From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:38 PM To:
>> Carlos A. Afonso Cc: Ian Peter ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
>> The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
>> 
>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF –
>> so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)
>> 
>> 
>> I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group
>> yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.
>> You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are
>> refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes
>> forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have
>> to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would
>> include that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out
>> from participation in this particular selection process".
>> 
>> Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash
>> our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I
>> don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.
>> Would be grateful for some more people to express their views
>> here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> 
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUCA8jAAoJEPeieloNaneNXsMP/20qnKS+3gwDRnyJKniySkRp
> wcN5h2hQPRisymqsqWlDHtj7TC/cuKx+GTSiSafDWX/I8qvEaPCJa5kIG5pd4pNc
> QAzov9PhjYGiYQ3zIVEsrKxKzSgGLvGOBfKntxrzo6QSgTkKZ0TkCmDAiZApF4Xi
> +9c/FxiaFH2ycU0hYeXsq85pN8EoFL5VodX3KGLSWNJ/b3kw0mRFFeuc7BKMRXu0
> AW8S0l5GRe5DKo5WrKT8v29ic3PPhEyaYzEev1+3ChoAW0QxH5aPHHBdOSakHvay
> JnXw/B/ICI+mKKy7kk3n/D1XgBYENfVfsRKMjorEQPj4uOsHDRt8Wb3xyXqHO25Y
> qUQ9T9M8APvZVOBSR2yy6P+PoKg7C8+bM+UeBQS9pjpX1y4g+0kUkn9U7RcPMuA9
> UOPynf6o4tM25JD3MhV8vE0yKLGGSvkBtwMk6AajEtTaIbu8XH1x4+ZqmKNWlAok
> 2Arj9lrSQ/APeLi9lsm2U7nXnXL7isY9FFnNSnrfMD07dek3kZX/WsJskgfcniur
> /DRX95tZAo6gg+yXJLebqD5GNx6gLnqRp1NEM+otRevHoLIGgtSVLn1622GLJqrf
> 4pCZIrs7QFwcv9DtkMEHVZ/vXyq6cDVEHhL1mDt2Z8C0o3UwWTlnah2/H4jj16mx
> Cvxf8/oznxXGsoCn//mW
> =rfXg
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/45c1cf1c/attachment.htm>

From brett at accessnow.org  Thu Sep  4 08:21:38 2014
From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 15:21:38 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony
In-Reply-To: <5408586A.4010502@digitaldissidents.org>
References: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org> <5408586A.4010502@digitaldissidents.org>
Message-ID: <58C90741-6020-4C7F-9ECA-D547FD0FB2CF@accessnow.org>

Congrats!!

Please mention the 13 principles:

Necessaryandproportionate.org

Brett 


Sent from my phone 

> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Dear Burcu,
> 
> It would be great if you could make the points mentioned in the Best
> Bits statement: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/
> 
> Personally I would really appreciate it if you could make a strong
> reference to the situation in Turkey and perhaps also refer to the
> situation in Azerbaijan that worsened since the the IGF was organized
> there.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> - -- 
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
> 
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
> 
> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> 
>> On 09/04/2014 02:37 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Bestbits friends,
>> 
>> Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am
>> pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing
>> ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind
>> words -- very much appreciated.
>> 
>> I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the
>> issues we care. Please send me your suggestions.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Burcu
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCFhqAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpDdgH/0S6lqFkYjJ/xkIRHoA+HfQ1
> 6R7vPLX8y9g1Nw3YEs7bdmzPeT/eXcXt5HaWYxIHd8Eis9WlxsAO8Sb9QJiV0JSS
> 8ZwHoS6aQVD1YBrkw1kAqCQ9FCHIYQ8ORvW6etlao6b4Cf9P2wsBRIBXP4yRhx4E
> AA7LaniMt3KKSTp2vaisjCCWnCt6QhE5CZ/eeP86uZFukkQqKJa+ziy71v9c0Ygv
> fpUyytERaMTzQ4GoVr4nER3Tqc4ig/WsjfiPkqDxyjHighS+gTkZl4fsycwhhdOL
> 9YtAOfWHu1oooBSTxtYdEQJQNP22O56D5psUENB1Wh8zd8Mmg/+CcU5oPed8HbA=
> =o/f5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Thu Sep  4 08:21:34 2014
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:21:34 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
In-Reply-To: <4A14F7DC-83C3-47E6-9579-68F8053B55EE@eff.org>
References: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <54082849.3030307@apc.org> <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFuLSeis69oWhtbmjTUrLSC3X=yfBLidXUHsudeW0R5zg@mail.gmail.com> <4A14F7DC-83C3-47E6-9579-68F8053B55EE@eff.org>
Message-ID: <5408594E.9000802@digitaldissidents.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

We will support this. Even though I would prefer to make point 6 point
1. Is there opposition against that?

Could we also make this a Best Bits statement instead of a sign-on
statement? (Sorry for now being more acquainted with the process.)

Best,

Niels

On 09/04/2014 02:03 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org>
>  wrote:
> 
>> +1. It is really important to be able to present it tomorrow, 
>> particularly the statement re Turkey. WF is happy with the draft
>>  as it stands (although the word order of point no 1 could be 
>> improved so that it's clear it's the IGF that needs strengthening
>> and improving, not the mandate).
> 
> I apologise for the delay.  There was some time needed to tie up 
> loose ends of wording and to check with the steering committee that
> we are indeed ready to post it.  So here it is now for 
> endorsement:
> 
> http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/
> 
> If I have made any errors please advise me.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You 
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your 
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

- -- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCFlOAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpdwgH/3V0FckVB55DfsBM+Hx8KjW2
/6Kk+fhOFioYeppGqCY9TaXHMkr3BkRy/X6yqofBBGhowfDSKPAk5gpIdmDJ0VQN
9vAMGrzsRbkUZX0MOno2V5XdtljmoFgShwzPrs3jk+ZLXQupc3K8ttqpKGzTnFed
PWdMv/07jqhO1GTLpnzSIY3XSozEuUMiPLolL7eunP+s/KRGdwXl+NwmWkPAQ/g9
dCOGlh48LqdIzIdBvc37ICc/pctSstRiWUX7Gv6Zgw6ulK6NEPNAMbwSMyXjTyow
7IYH+C1si9mn1WtE7eRCDgaQ3ocVJqRQTgPFv8vVxrh7RCfxO/XFpIHW7EGrIKE=
=mapD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Thu Sep  4 08:23:32 2014
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:23:32 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony
In-Reply-To: <58C90741-6020-4C7F-9ECA-D547FD0FB2CF@accessnow.org>
References: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org> <5408586A.4010502@digitaldissidents.org> <58C90741-6020-4C7F-9ECA-D547FD0FB2CF@accessnow.org>
Message-ID: <540859C4.5000604@digitaldissidents.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1

On 09/04/2014 03:21 PM, Brett Solomon wrote:
> Congrats!!
> 
> Please mention the 13 principles:
> 
> Necessaryandproportionate.org
> 
> Brett
> 
> 
> Sent from my phone
> 
>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Niels ten Oever
>> <lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
>> 
> Dear Burcu,
> 
> It would be great if you could make the points mentioned in the
> Best Bits statement: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/
> 
> Personally I would really appreciate it if you could make a strong 
> reference to the situation in Turkey and perhaps also refer to the 
> situation in Azerbaijan that worsened since the the IGF was
> organized there.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Niels
> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

- -- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCFnEAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp5zsH/34Mvj8ul/JzeFBZj3+wVIc4
p2F0vjemJrjSfLkuEF2KrPK2lu8TchTazFz/j9eHVmrXzWw1WU5C9NjBz+j3JIjm
r1TX48CsYzVJergT2lNmt5IG1XZ7Q4k0Jlk3hB2IriO1/yE0dReO433Aznp16GoY
pRzoG6WSGov87G3g33k+UFnFW5f1NVD2bYivN78K5Q1ON6Itr9FAWkwDT05DBHgQ
ArTV30T5VL2jkWvmYsOS+RQ7N+CSLfkMU5bwZ/ZJ7IGwoXUFpIrUXo4ILm30vJey
6f9po/1SzoDxr7xHinGVn6gCu+POppAX513Rqb+F99RZ5h7YaXX3+oFI0N5RUM0=
=QaUK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Sep  4 09:31:59 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:31:59 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <E19F2C82-1311-46D7-A690-4974352DDCC0@accessnow.org>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org> <F743C564914A471885945667F82DEA15@Toshiba> <54080F24.9070000@apc.org> <62047F103A2E4DB69ABAC2F22645FFE1@Toshiba> <4FCA0958710E47B9AFEE527A104BC97D@Toshiba> <E19F2C82-1311-46D7-A690-4974352DDCC0@accessnow.org>
Message-ID: <540869CF.5000904@wzb.eu>



Am 04.09.14 14:20, schrieb Brett Solomon:
> Hey,
>
>(...)

> On process, my concern is that the CS coordinating body seems to be
> taking on a decision making role as to /whether/ we should attend rather
> than /who/ should attend once a decision has made to attend.

This is my concern too, just less clearly worded. We kill the committee, 
and the intention behind it, if we let it expand into this realm.

jeanette
>
> With respect to participating I get the sense that governments and
> companies are v skeptical. So I'm not sure why civil society is rushing
> to put names forward. I have been invited to be on the Steering
> Committee and have not yet communicated with then about which way I will
> go, though I have indicated to Jeremy in Geneva that I would be open to
> the CSCG process. I will certainly keep you posted with my thinking as
> it emerges.
>
> Brett
>
> Sent from my phone
>
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 2:46 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
>> I'm cross posting this here because  it was suggested I do this, after
>> I originally posted this to the CSCG list. To give context - some of
>> our members are concerned that there hasnt been enough discussion and
>> want to delay consideration until we have clarity about WEF's
>> objectives and plans, intentions etc, and formally announce their
>> intentions including decoupling from NetMundial. I suggested those in
>> Istanbul seek another meeting if possible to clarify matters; but
>> after some thought I posted this. I think this explains where we are
>> at from my perspective.
>>
>> Thinking more about this -
>>
>> while I would still urge you to meet with WEF and seek more clarity, I
>> think our dilemma is this.
>>
>> WEF dont want to be clear about the process because they want it to be
>> seen that the incoming committee defines the process. So we are in a
>> Catch-22 here – it they define it, they are not being bottom-up, if
>> they don’t, we don’t think we have enough clarity to participate.
>>
>> WEF want to move quickly so they have something to show for their
>> efforts. they expect to have all other committee members in place next
>> week, the only exception being civil society. They have agreed to us
>> having more time, and also to us choosing all CS members. Now if we
>> ask for more time, they will see the strength of the project and their
>> commitments at risk and our involvement as unreliable.
>>
>> This is particularly so because we really dont know how much time it
>> would take us to decide whether we want to commit or not. I doubt
>> there will be any more clarity in one week, or three weeks, or 3
>> months. So I actually think we might have a lot to lose by delaying,
>> and nothing to gain. The nature of this initiative as something new
>> and outside our normal range of experience means that we probably have
>> to take a risk, or alternatively determine right now to disengage.
>>
>> I think we should take that risk, and stick to our timetable or
>> something workable very close to it. In doing so, to minimise our
>> risk, we can continue to engage and select candidates, but communicate
>> with this process some misgivings and concerns. We can indicate an
>> intention to withdraw unless certain developments are committed to.
>>
>> So by all means talk to them about more time, but I am not sure
>> whether it will help. I know that things are difficult at IGF with so
>> many meetings and poor wifi, and if it helps we could delay a couple
>> of days and shorten the nomination period. But to be honest I dont
>> think we are going to have any more clarity then, or within a month.
>> So we may have to engage and be part of the development, rather than
>> waiting to react to something which really shouldn’t be developed much
>> further without our involvement anyway.
>>
>> Typical difficulties at the beginning. I understand the caution. Let’s
>> use the caution to define our concerns and communicate them as we
>> engage. That’s my thoughts, but the decision is yours.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter
>> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:25 PM
>> To: Deborah Brown ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
>> The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
>>
>> Hi Deborah, I can answer this -
>>
>> We need to put out a call for candidates ( if we are going to) on Friday
>> (tomorrow) - no later. This is partly because for the next few days many
>> people will be travelling so we do need to get underway and close off
>> nominations about September 9-10.
>>
>> Originally, we were asked to provide final selection of candidates by
>> about
>> Wednesday next week - clearly an impossibility. We have negotiated a
>> deadline till September 21 to submit names, but will need all that time to
>> collate names from various coalitions and make selections.
>>
>> So really we need to decide whether to participate by tomorrow. - (or
>> alternatively begin a selection process while we decide whether we are
>> going
>> to engage or not, which would be messy).
>>
>> I hope this deadline helps to get some comments!
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Deborah Brown
>> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:05 PM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
>> The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> Hi Jeremy,
>>
>> The timeline on making a decision on this was not clear to me from
>> your email. You wrote:
>>
>> The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for
>> nominations no earlier than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow
>> discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process.
>>
>> I agree that there has not been enough discussion of this (nor time to
>> do so) but a concrete deadline might encourage this ;)
>>
>> Best,
>> Deborah
>>
>> On 9/4/14 9:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>> just to be clear on this – the statement below would only be
>>> when/if we formally announce our nominees – not every time they
>>> speak!
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:38 PM To:
>>> Carlos A. Afonso Cc: Ian Peter ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
>>> The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
>>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
>>> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF –
>>> so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group
>>> yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.
>>> You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are
>>> refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes
>>> forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have
>>> to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would
>>> include that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out
>>> from participation in this particular selection process".
>>>
>>> Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash
>>> our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I
>>> don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.
>>> Would be grateful for some more people to express their views
>>> here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To
>>> unsubscribe or change your
>>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
>>
>> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUCA8jAAoJEPeieloNaneNXsMP/20qnKS+3gwDRnyJKniySkRp
>> wcN5h2hQPRisymqsqWlDHtj7TC/cuKx+GTSiSafDWX/I8qvEaPCJa5kIG5pd4pNc
>> QAzov9PhjYGiYQ3zIVEsrKxKzSgGLvGOBfKntxrzo6QSgTkKZ0TkCmDAiZApF4Xi
>> +9c/FxiaFH2ycU0hYeXsq85pN8EoFL5VodX3KGLSWNJ/b3kw0mRFFeuc7BKMRXu0
>> AW8S0l5GRe5DKo5WrKT8v29ic3PPhEyaYzEev1+3ChoAW0QxH5aPHHBdOSakHvay
>> JnXw/B/ICI+mKKy7kk3n/D1XgBYENfVfsRKMjorEQPj4uOsHDRt8Wb3xyXqHO25Y
>> qUQ9T9M8APvZVOBSR2yy6P+PoKg7C8+bM+UeBQS9pjpX1y4g+0kUkn9U7RcPMuA9
>> UOPynf6o4tM25JD3MhV8vE0yKLGGSvkBtwMk6AajEtTaIbu8XH1x4+ZqmKNWlAok
>> 2Arj9lrSQ/APeLi9lsm2U7nXnXL7isY9FFnNSnrfMD07dek3kZX/WsJskgfcniur
>> /DRX95tZAo6gg+yXJLebqD5GNx6gLnqRp1NEM+otRevHoLIGgtSVLn1622GLJqrf
>> 4pCZIrs7QFwcv9DtkMEHVZ/vXyq6cDVEHhL1mDt2Z8C0o3UwWTlnah2/H4jj16mx
>> Cvxf8/oznxXGsoCn//mW
>> =rfXg
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Thu Sep  4 08:26:40 2014
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:26:40 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
In-Reply-To: <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <54082849.3030307@apc.org> <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54085A80.5090006@bytesforall.pk>

+1

from Bytes for All, Pakistan

Best wishes and regards

Shahzad


On 9/4/14 2:12 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
> So do I!
>
>
> On 4 September 2014 11:52, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Niels - I agree with this and happy for it to be published for sign on
>> Joy
>>
>> On 4/09/2014 8:41 p.m., Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I think it is crucial that we agree on the IGF BestBIts statement so
>> that we can publish it today for sign on and present it tomorrow at
>> the last day of the IGF.
>>
>> Pad is here: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y Statement is from
>> line 330 - 345.
>>
>> Text is underneath.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -Niels
>>
>> We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
>> reaffirm that human rights and sustainable development are underlying
>> concerns for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
>> this 2014 IGF in Istanbul we wish to in particular to:
>>
>> 1. Call for the establishment of the IGF as a multistakeholder forum
>> within the framework of the United Nations with an open-ended mandate,
>> that should be reformed and strengthened.
>>
>> 2. Call for more thorough and timely review of the IGF post-Istanbul
>> (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at potential
>> changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
>>
>> 3 . Support the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the
>> Internet - known as the NETMundial and its recommendations for the IGF.
>>
>> 4. Commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap set in its
>> outcome document by, for example, focusing on net neutrality, and ask
>> the MAG, UNDESA and Brazil - the host of the 2015 IGF - to build on
>> this roadmap, and to build upon the regional and national IGFs as core
>> opportunities that feed into this process.
>>
>> 5. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
>> ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken into
>> account, by way of a more structured consultation process and allowing
>> civil society to appoint its own representatives and speakers.
>>
>> 6. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of
>> expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation
>> to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits
>> welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish
>> civil society organizations to address this threat to human rights.
>>
>>  >
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Shahzad Ahmad
Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
@bytesforall | @sirkup
Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981

PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/8113e504/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Sep  4 08:35:59 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 15:35:59 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
In-Reply-To: <5408594E.9000802@digitaldissidents.org>
References: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <54082849.3030307@apc.org> <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFuLSeis69oWhtbmjTUrLSC3X=yfBLidXUHsudeW0R5zg@mail.gmail.com> <4A14F7DC-83C3-47E6-9579-68F8053B55EE@eff.org> <5408594E.9000802@digitaldissidents.org>
Message-ID: <4C4D75FE-6ED5-4F40-A68E-F6C6E46E346E@eff.org>

On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:

> Signed PGP part
> We will support this. Even though I would prefer to make point 6 point
> 1. Is there opposition against that?

Yes there was as Access wanted it at the end - IMHO either start or end are strong places for it.

> Could we also make this a Best Bits statement instead of a sign-on
> statement? (Sorry for now being more acquainted with the process.)

I don't think so - we had a show of hands at the meeting in support of what is now paragraph 1 and this will be reflected in the record of the meeting, but the other paragraphs are somewhat novel and the opt-in sign-on is a more appropriate procedure for those.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/f3e8040b/attachment.sig>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Sep  4 08:39:04 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 15:39:04 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <540869CF.5000904@wzb.eu>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org> <F743C564914A471885945667F82DEA15@Toshiba> <54080F24.9070000@apc.org> <62047F103A2E4DB69ABAC2F22645FFE1@Toshiba> <4FCA0958710E47B9AFEE527A104BC97D@Toshiba> <E19F2C82-1311-46D7-A690-4974352DDCC0@accessnow.org> <540869CF.5000904@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <365F67D6-4B7B-43F2-B4EE-A84DB7D2F460@eff.org>

On Sep 4, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Am 04.09.14 14:20, schrieb Brett Solomon:
>> On process, my concern is that the CS coordinating body seems to be
>> taking on a decision making role as to /whether/ we should attend rather
>> than /who/ should attend once a decision has made to attend.
> 
> This is my concern too, just less clearly worded. We kill the committee, and the intention behind it, if we let it expand into this realm.

FWIW I fully agree and that's why in a personal capacity I encouraged CSCG members to air their views on the /whether/ question on public lists as part of their constituent groups, rather than deliberating upon this within the CSCG, and they have done so.  So I think that although the criticism is well placed, the CSCG is not going down this wrong path.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/dc1ccd10/attachment.sig>

From crizalez at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 04:12:41 2014
From: crizalez at gmail.com (Cristiana Gonzalez)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:12:41 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
	<B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com>
	<CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN=BAoG4ukcSnd2d-qNY=MjGE4-9iCPD7ejzDUo2qk7a-4h+cQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1
Also from yesterday BB meeting someone said that "UN space and global IGF
keep discussions in public space".



2014-09-01 10:53 GMT+03:00 Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>:

> Agree.
>
> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>
> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
> Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working
> group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will
> be
> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia:
> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative
> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy
> options;
> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF,
> including
> through a broadened donor base, is essential;
> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions
> between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both
> long
> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
> identification of
> possible ways to address them."
>
> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a
> permanent body instead of  renewing its mandate for another limited term of
> 5 or 10 years."
>
> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>
> best
>
> joana
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé <joao.caribe at me.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count me
>> on to support as I can.
>>
>> _
>> João Carlos Caribé
>> (021) 8761 1967
>> (021) 4042 7727
>> Skype joaocaribe
>> Enviado via iPad
>>
>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> escreveu:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement
>> that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing
>> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>> >
>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
>> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
>> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
>> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
>> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
>> statement.)
>> >
>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>> support in civil society.
>> >
>> > jeanette
>> >
>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/7cf376dd/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Sep  4 09:10:02 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:10:02 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <BEB8588F-857E-4EDB-87AE-C5CE1D2B962E@gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
 <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>,<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com>
 <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>,<BEB8588F-857E-4EDB-87AE-C5CE1D2B962E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2247c55a35f04d229747b32b4242a931@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Please, I was suggesting UNGA kick IGF around every 10 years, not every 5 ; )


As 5 is old news and no 'concession' from anyone, I do not see that as a plausible fallback. So recognizing 10 is what "UN GA would do that for us" is a bad strategy because??


Seems like an opportunity to simultaneously make additional demands on transparency and accountability. Of course, as ICANN has just taught us yet again, not all transparency and accountability processes were created equal, so details will matter. But in any case 10 with (some more) accountability and transparency is  better than infinite without.


Lee

________________________________
From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 5:49 AM
To: Lee W McKnight
Cc: Governance; Milton L Mueller; George Sadowsky; Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent

On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu<mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>> wrote:

Split the difference.

Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation in IGF;

The UN GA would do that for us, so why would do it and disarm at the front end?  As for 10, you get 5.   That's the point of asking for a permanent mandate, so when there's push back and control agendas and conditions being proposed and tactical linkages being made to residual intergovernmental enhanced cooperation plays in exchange for a five year extension we can negotiate to a higher middle ground of ten.

Why anyone would think that keeping the UNGA in a position of being able to kick the IGF around every five years and the DESA in a position to micromanage based on institutional weakness is a path to some higher level of accountability is really beyond me.

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/a6de3b93/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Thu Sep  4 09:25:52 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:25:52 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Here is the draft email we propose to
 send to stakeholders re the IGF renewal letter
In-Reply-To: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca>

Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum:

At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various
stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate
extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the
organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for
projects.  We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not
just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended
re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum.  We
request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on
or before November 1.

We will be creating a neutral website for this project at
www.IGFcontinuity.org  very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations,
countries, and individuals.  In the meantime, the undersigned will
collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are
able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF
2014.  The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair
will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5.
Examples of how you will be listed appear below:
1.  Jane Smith                       Individual
2.  Acme Industry Association        Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets
3.  State of [x]                     Country

  Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions.

Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu
Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/6e7fc5fb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF renewal7.1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 135115 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/6e7fc5fb/attachment.docx>

From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Thu Sep  4 09:37:46 2014
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:37:46 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: IGF Reform
In-Reply-To: <CAHV=geNkVv0NcJq5Td7_e+78SmKUMYp8vXD642VUJPKzXMgVMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHV=geNkVv0NcJq5Td7_e+78SmKUMYp8vXD642VUJPKzXMgVMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54086B2A.7090903@digitaldissidents.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Patrick,

Forwarding this to the BestBits list, which should cover many of the
civil society colleagues present here.

Best,

Niels


- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	IGF Reform
Date: 	09/04/2014 03:31 PM
From: 	Patrick Ryan <pryan at pryan.net>
To: 	Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org>



Niels,

Good to see you here----

I've had a doc for a couple years that I hack away at regarding IGF
reform, it's public, and could be of interest to the community at this
Ungovernance forum.

Point 3d addresses country selection, something that I've been VERY
vocal about and that I still think needs to be addressed.

Here's the doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IpseDEXj9F25-RQkJWX6ERYl6_K3-jlC0HpTYuqFDCY/edit

Is there an email list of colleagues here?  If so, could you send this
doc to them?  I would welcome thoughts (and suppport on these, if they
make sense).

Cheers,

Patrick


- -- 
*patrick s. ryan*
t: +1.512.751.5346
personal website <http://www.pryan.net> | g+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/101796592759188137838/about>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCGsqAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpNKkH/iG+nfy5HV20m47nXGCdk90V
4zDB9sOvzPohpc0miF/DDWKkYFojf52Q8uHFYibikMFUMKM9gZmYbCwaAyTy4til
lFE0kt3n48FodXGuklG47+hU3jkqxCjd1XwcznCm63Jl5EX3OgRGeJmHenXU85rV
7He6iPyCz5/vsPytA3XTyJ4FQJMP0i4t9lkLa0tmt0uLRVZ+8Mi9EcueRJ5JteZo
n6IWCxlfG74tOwY4ykN1RDXX4E2nWLnsEHM9w4qLt5uoNlHDn7d+75N36eHjHg7c
AVx6/fg4CdFs+AcH2r/NT2HnFasMith8YKjojZ7ZfPCF2ktJm8irY+yrgA2Bz2w=
=xHqc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 10:04:37 2014
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:04:37 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Invitation- Youth Coalition on Internet Governance - IGF
 Istanbul Friday 9.00am
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeFfGcnQNE8J74ooXzJXpHKedO_ECfQ+STescUEev6DLtQ@mail.gmail.com>

You are invited to participate in Youth Coalition on Internet
Governance in Workshop
Room 05 (Rumeli -1 Floor / Room 3)
<https://igf2014.sched.org/venue/Workshop+Room+05+%28Rumeli+-1+Floor+%2F+Room+3%29>
on Friday September 5, 2014 9:00am – 10:30am.

This meeting is aimed to rejuvenate the Youth Coalition on Internet
Governance, bringing new leadership and setup a strategical plan for the
next 3 years.

The meeting will involve new members working on setting new goals for the
coalition and ensuring the transition. It will follow a roundtable format
and will be facilitated by the interim coordinator. It will involve old and
new members of the Dynamic Coalition.
Remote participation is at:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation-2014

We welcome your participation to find ways to ensure that the youth voice
is heard in internet governance.

--

Best Regards,
​​
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/eb487673/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Thu Sep  4 10:08:43 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:08:43 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open
 Ended Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
In-Reply-To: <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca>

Just an update:  we already have over a dozen signatories.  I will send 
an update on signatories at 9am tomorrow, and at 1pm tomorrow, UTC+2.  
Qualified statements of support are also most welcome; please indicate 
how you would prefer this support to be expressed.
The proper title for the attached document is listed in the Subject line.
Stephanie Perrin
> Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum:
>
> At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various
> stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate
> extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the
> organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for
> projects.  We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not
> just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended
> re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum.  We
> request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on
> or before November 1.
>
> We will be creating a neutral website for this project at
> www.IGFcontinuity.org  very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations,
> countries, and individuals.  In the meantime, the undersigned will
> collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are
> able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF
> 2014.  The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair
> will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5.
> Examples of how you will be listed appear below:
> 1.  Jane Smith                       Individual
> 2.  Acme Industry Association        Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets
> 3.  State of [x]                     Country
>
>   Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions.
>
> Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu
> Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/67d9eb65/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF renewal7.1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 135115 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/67d9eb65/attachment.docx>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Sep  4 10:56:41 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:56:41 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony
In-Reply-To: <58C90741-6020-4C7F-9ECA-D547FD0FB2CF@accessnow.org>
References: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org> <5408586A.4010502@digitaldissidents.org> <58C90741-6020-4C7F-9ECA-D547FD0FB2CF@accessnow.org>
Message-ID: <D2F96E4C-F689-40B0-9AB7-A94EFD273B45@cafonso.ca>

She has only 5 minutes... :)

sent from a dumbphone

> On 04/09/2014, at 15:21, Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org> wrote:
> 
> Congrats!!
> 
> Please mention the 13 principles:
> 
> Necessaryandproportionate.org
> 
> Brett 
> 
> 
> Sent from my phone 
> 
>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Dear Burcu,
>> 
>> It would be great if you could make the points mentioned in the Best
>> Bits statement: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/
>> 
>> Personally I would really appreciate it if you could make a strong
>> reference to the situation in Turkey and perhaps also refer to the
>> situation in Azerbaijan that worsened since the the IGF was organized
>> there.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Niels
>> 
>> - -- 
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Head of Digital
>> 
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org
>> 
>> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>> 
>>> On 09/04/2014 02:37 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Bestbits friends,
>>> 
>>> Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am
>>> pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing
>>> ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind
>>> words -- very much appreciated.
>>> 
>>> I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the
>>> issues we care. Please send me your suggestions.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Burcu
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>> 
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCFhqAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpDdgH/0S6lqFkYjJ/xkIRHoA+HfQ1
>> 6R7vPLX8y9g1Nw3YEs7bdmzPeT/eXcXt5HaWYxIHd8Eis9WlxsAO8Sb9QJiV0JSS
>> 8ZwHoS6aQVD1YBrkw1kAqCQ9FCHIYQ8ORvW6etlao6b4Cf9P2wsBRIBXP4yRhx4E
>> AA7LaniMt3KKSTp2vaisjCCWnCt6QhE5CZ/eeP86uZFukkQqKJa+ziy71v9c0Ygv
>> fpUyytERaMTzQ4GoVr4nER3Tqc4ig/WsjfiPkqDxyjHighS+gTkZl4fsycwhhdOL
>> 9YtAOfWHu1oooBSTxtYdEQJQNP22O56D5psUENB1Wh8zd8Mmg/+CcU5oPed8HbA=
>> =o/f5
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From claudio at derechosdigitales.org  Thu Sep  4 12:15:59 2014
From: claudio at derechosdigitales.org (Claudio Ruiz)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:15:59 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <5406CE3D.8040401@cdt.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org> <CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
 <8DD54C68-71F5-42D2-BBC6-52F38732E7A6@opentechinstitute.org>
 <CAK-FJAf8JX0Zt8_VKH+5aSo+Or3e=simx21mQodJfDLrPbEq-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAdpJtHvzATJ3-eV-TnFV2wnFJDK_PHB+8AsQOtBgG1rJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5406B665.8090500@wzb.eu> <8DA5BDD6-0B98-4674-85E1-0F782DF2FDDD@eff.org> <5406CE3D.8040401@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAH3SeZRpMtn2MT7PBkMdXEPcxNR39_1E-3vbP-ZAR9so+D8R4Q@mail.gmail.com>

+1 to Matthew

—Claudio
PGP B603D089
<http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x74D25C4DB603D089>


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>  Hi
>
> Would it be possible to list the links to each of these docs (seems there
> are 3 now)?   Its challenging to follow the various strands on this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 9/3/2014 8:44 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>
>  we see positive responses for the statement # 1 from various organizations including governments. There are chances that, more or less by accident, we produce an outcome at this year's IGF that has been co-authored by two civil society individuals. There has been very little feedback from civil society so far.
>
> It would be good if the groups in favor of making the IGF more outcome orientied would have a look at the statement and let us know by tomorrow if they are able to endorse it or not.
>
> As I said yesterday, we will do minor changes later today but the basic content is stable by now.
>
>  Once those minor changes are done, it has been suggested it be posted to the Best Bits site for endorsement along with statement #3 - not to detract from the fact that #1 will be a multi-stakeholder statement which has a different status to a Best Bits network statement, but rather so that there is an easy way for us to express our individual endorsement with it.
>
> If this meets with your approval Jeannette, please let me know when the minor changes are done.  (Meanwhile I'm also checking on this with the steering committee.)
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/586583aa/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Thu Sep  4 13:31:03 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 20:31:03 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <54063A7F.8000103@wzb.eu>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org> <CAOi1r6aDndCHmpqHwsBov0MycQBmUgxEqt+=ZgHVwZESNjky1g@mail.gmail.com> <54063A7F.8000103@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <5408A1D7.8000002@cis-india.org>

Dear Jeanette and all,
Do we know of anyone who is opposed to:

	* Renewal of the IGF's mandate for another 5/10 years? or
	* Having an open-ended mandate for the IGF?

It would be useful to know who exactly are opposed to these and why.

Stephanie, you mentioned that I was "voicing concerns that we have heard 
from both govt and business".  Could you please specify which government 
delegations and which businesses / business associations you have heard 
this from?  Thanks!

Regards,
Pranesh

Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-002 23:45:35 +0200
]:
>
>
> Stephanie did circulate our second version today. You should have got it.
>
> Meanwhile, there is a chance that some governments will also endorse it.
> We are working on this right now.
>
> The statement, sort of born at the BB meeting, could become an informal
> or formal outcome of the IGF.
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 02.09.14 16:55, schrieb Andrew Puddephatt:
>> can both statements - short and long be posted for approval?
>>
>>> *Andrew Puddephatt*
>>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>>> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 September 2014 13:35, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
>>     wrote:
>>
>>      > Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits
>>     meeting
>>      > earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
>>      > Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement
>>     which is
>>      > in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>>      > The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version
>>     starting
>>      > at line 325.
>>      > Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits
>>     can be
>>      > made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of
>> Thursday
>>      > Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>>
>>     So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>>
>>     1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
>>     https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
>>     *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>>
>>     2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325
>>     which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension
>>     and other issues.[1]
>>
>>     3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
>>     establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum
>>     within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and
>>     strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus*
>>     outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>>
>>     MY QUESTION:
>>
>>     It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
>>     individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens
>>     with 1 and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our
>>     meeting page at http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what
>>     would be an appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show
>>     support for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the
>>     consensus that we reached on 3)?
>>
>>
>>     [0] Current full text below:
>>
>>     In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the
>>     Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for
>>     multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>>     Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>>
>>     The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues
>>     relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those
>>     enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the
>>     sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of
>>     the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was
>>     not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or
>>     organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
>>     non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
>>     day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>>
>>     The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
>>     desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal
>>     consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its
>>     creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
>>     regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to
>>     extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the
>>     IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global
>>     Internet governance”.
>>
>>     In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum,
>>     the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and
>>     valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the
>>     private sector and international organizations discuss important
>>     questions of economic and social development. They share their
>>     insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the
>>     Internet’s great potential.
>>
>>     The Secretary-General recommended that
>>     (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended
>>     for a further five years;
>>     (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by
>> Member
>>     States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of
>>     the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>
>>     Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
>>     preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for
>>     development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of
>>     2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>>
>>     The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated
>>     in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014,
>>     that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>     (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made
>>     by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial
>>     Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as
>>     a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues
>>     with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways
>>     to address them.”
>>
>>     In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of
>>     IGF.  We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven
>>     its worth. (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on
>>     the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with
>>     the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate and reliable
>>     financial support. These two goals are interrelated.  To address the
>>     need for sustainable funding, the Internet Governance Forum Support
>>     Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014.  The
>>     goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote sustainable
>>     funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing
>>     funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
>>     are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet
>>     community needs in order to continues its work for the global
>>     Internet development goals.
>>
>>     Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the
>>     continuing development of Internet governance and based on success
>>     of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN
>>     Secretary General to  establish the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent)
>>     forum.  We believe that the IGF should move beyond its initiation
>>     phase where repeated renewal by the UN General assembly is required
>>     and that it be allowed to do long range planning for its continuing
>>     and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary General
>>     work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure
>>     and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder
>> foundation.
>>
>>
>>     [1] Current full text below:
>>
>>     We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
>>     re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying
>>     concerns  for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
>>     this 2014 IGF  in Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and
>>     then the specific  demands below)
>>
>>     1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom
>>     of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in
>>     relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore
>>     Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum
>>     and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to
>>     human rights.
>>
>>     2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>>     multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should
>>     be reformed and strengthened.
>>
>>     3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF
>>     post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to
>>     look at  potential changes that could lead to its further
>> strengthening.
>>
>>     4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
>>     express concerns about the number of new processes which civil
>>     society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call
>>     for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.
>>
>>     5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by,
>>     for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA
>>     and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to
>>     use regional and national IGFs as part of this process.
>>
>>     6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
>>     ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken
>>     into account.
>>
>>     --
>>     Jeremy Malcolm
>>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>     https://eff.org
>>     jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>
>>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>
>>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/6384c959/attachment.sig>

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Sep  4 13:38:51 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:38:51 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Invitation - IGF WS99 Digital inclusion policies for
 the forgotten billion
In-Reply-To: <5407FFD7.2070704@gsa.com.au>
References: <5407FFD7.2070704@gsa.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0o6Ts7ATVfghQhuvcGV5xmqTZ1udt4ApydPs5Dc4qm1w@mail.gmail.com>

This session is archived at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0LAgt0_AI


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink at gsa.com.au>
wrote:

> You are invited to participate in WS99 Digital inclusion policies for the
> forgotten billion in Workshop Room 01 (Rumeli Ground Floor / Room B1) at
> 4.30pm this afternoon.
>
> This workshop will discuss the role of disability in the multi-stakeholder
> model. Perspectives will be provided from representatives of international
> organisations such as ICANN, ISOC, W3C, ITU and also insights from Asia and
> Africa.
>
> Further information is at: http://2014.intgovforum.org/event/
> 130507d2f324b731b232bb8f878d8087#.VAf5A0huGsF
>
> Remote participation is at: http://www.intgovforum.org/
> cms/remote-participation-2014
>
> We welcome your participation to find ways to ensure that the disability
> voice is heard in internet governance.
>
> Regards,
> Gunela Astbrink
> Director, Internet Society of Australia
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/547cbbcb/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Sep  4 14:21:16 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 21:21:16 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <5406CE3D.8040401@cdt.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org> <CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org> <8DD54C68-71F5-42D2-BBC6-52F38732E7A6@opentechinstitute.org> <CAK-FJAf8JX0Zt8_VKH+5aSo+Or3e=simx21mQodJfDLrPbEq-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAdpJtHvzATJ3-eV-TnFV2wnFJDK_PHB+8AsQOtBgG1rJA@mail.gmail.com> <5406B665.8090500@wzb.eu> <8DA5BDD6-0B98-4674-85E1-0F782DF2FDDD@eff.org> <5406CE3D.8040401@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CB82326D-029A-4C73-B957-71A951DAA9FD@eff.org>

On Sep 3, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi 
> 
> Would it be possible to list the links to each of these docs (seems there are 3 now)?   Its challenging to follow the various strands on this.

There are two statements both open for endorsement below:

http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/ (BB statement)
http://igfcontinuation.org (multistakeholder statement)

Hope that helps. 

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/d2108bfe/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Mon Sep  1 04:38:36 2014
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 20:38:36 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com> <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org>
Message-ID: <5404308C.5030302@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/e9073017/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Sep  4 17:12:26 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 23:12:26 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <5408A1D7.8000002@cis-india.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org> <CAOi1r6aDndCHmpqHwsBov0MycQBmUgxEqt+=ZgHVwZESNjky1g@mail.gmail.com> <54063A7F.8000103@wzb.eu> <5408A1D7.8000002@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <5408D5BA.40304@wzb.eu>

Hi Pranesh,

it is not that there would be open opposition to an extention of the 
IGF's mandate but suddenly there are lots of concerns with the term 
"open ended". We, Stephanie and me, have been told that the statement 
would get much broader support if we replaced the term "open ended" with 
something softer such as "longer term". After some hesitation we decided 
for various reasons against changing the language. Right now, we cannot 
say how much support the current wording of the statement will get.

While you seem to imply that we are asking for something that is more or 
less accepted anyway, others reminded us today that we had the same 
battle over language in the negotiations of the NetMundial statement. 
The drafters of the NetMundial statement started with making the IGF's 
mandate "permanent", just like us, and ended with extending it "beyond 
five years". These matters seem trivial but actually they aren't.

Jeanette

Am 04.09.14 19:31, schrieb Pranesh Prakash:
> Dear Jeanette and all,
> Do we know of anyone who is opposed to:
>
>      * Renewal of the IGF's mandate for another 5/10 years? or
>      * Having an open-ended mandate for the IGF?
>
> It would be useful to know who exactly are opposed to these and why.
>
> Stephanie, you mentioned that I was "voicing concerns that we have heard
> from both govt and business".  Could you please specify which government
> delegations and which businesses / business associations you have heard
> this from?  Thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-002 23:45:35 +0200
> ]:
>>
>>
>> Stephanie did circulate our second version today. You should have got it.
>>
>> Meanwhile, there is a chance that some governments will also endorse it.
>> We are working on this right now.
>>
>> The statement, sort of born at the BB meeting, could become an informal
>> or formal outcome of the IGF.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 02.09.14 16:55, schrieb Andrew Puddephatt:
>>> can both statements - short and long be posted for approval?
>>>
>>>> *Andrew Puddephatt*
>>>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>>>> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 September 2014 13:35, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
>>>     wrote:
>>>
>>>      > Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits
>>>     meeting
>>>      > earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
>>>      > Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement
>>>     which is
>>>      > in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>>>      > The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version
>>>     starting
>>>      > at line 325.
>>>      > Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits
>>>     can be
>>>      > made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of
>>> Thursday
>>>      > Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>>>
>>>     So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>>>
>>>     1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
>>>     https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
>>>     *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>>>
>>>     2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325
>>>     which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension
>>>     and other issues.[1]
>>>
>>>     3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
>>>     establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum
>>>     within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and
>>>     strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus*
>>>     outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>>>
>>>     MY QUESTION:
>>>
>>>     It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
>>>     individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens
>>>     with 1 and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our
>>>     meeting page at http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what
>>>     would be an appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show
>>>     support for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the
>>>     consensus that we reached on 3)?
>>>
>>>
>>>     [0] Current full text below:
>>>
>>>     In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the
>>>     Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for
>>>     multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>>>     Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>>>
>>>     The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues
>>>     relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those
>>>     enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the
>>>     sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of
>>>     the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was
>>>     not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or
>>>     organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
>>>     non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
>>>     day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>>>
>>>     The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
>>>     desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal
>>>     consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its
>>>     creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
>>>     regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to
>>>     extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the
>>>     IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global
>>>     Internet governance”.
>>>
>>>     In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum,
>>>     the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and
>>>     valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the
>>>     private sector and international organizations discuss important
>>>     questions of economic and social development. They share their
>>>     insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the
>>>     Internet’s great potential.
>>>
>>>     The Secretary-General recommended that
>>>     (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended
>>>     for a further five years;
>>>     (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by
>>> Member
>>>     States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of
>>>     the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>>
>>>     Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
>>>     preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for
>>>     development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of
>>>     2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>>>
>>>     The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated
>>>     in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014,
>>>     that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>     (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made
>>>     by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial
>>>     Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as
>>>     a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues
>>>     with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways
>>>     to address them.”
>>>
>>>     In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of
>>>     IGF.  We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven
>>>     its worth. (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on
>>>     the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with
>>>     the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate and reliable
>>>     financial support. These two goals are interrelated.  To address the
>>>     need for sustainable funding, the Internet Governance Forum Support
>>>     Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014.  The
>>>     goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote sustainable
>>>     funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing
>>>     funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
>>>     are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet
>>>     community needs in order to continues its work for the global
>>>     Internet development goals.
>>>
>>>     Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the
>>>     continuing development of Internet governance and based on success
>>>     of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN
>>>     Secretary General to  establish the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent)
>>>     forum.  We believe that the IGF should move beyond its initiation
>>>     phase where repeated renewal by the UN General assembly is required
>>>     and that it be allowed to do long range planning for its continuing
>>>     and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary General
>>>     work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure
>>>     and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder
>>> foundation.
>>>
>>>
>>>     [1] Current full text below:
>>>
>>>     We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
>>>     re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying
>>>     concerns  for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
>>>     this 2014 IGF  in Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and
>>>     then the specific  demands below)
>>>
>>>     1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom
>>>     of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in
>>>     relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore
>>>     Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum
>>>     and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to
>>>     human rights.
>>>
>>>     2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>>>     multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should
>>>     be reformed and strengthened.
>>>
>>>     3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF
>>>     post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to
>>>     look at  potential changes that could lead to its further
>>> strengthening.
>>>
>>>     4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
>>>     express concerns about the number of new processes which civil
>>>     society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call
>>>     for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.
>>>
>>>     5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by,
>>>     for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA
>>>     and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to
>>>     use regional and national IGFs as part of this process.
>>>
>>>     6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
>>>     ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken
>>>     into account.
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Jeremy Malcolm
>>>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>     https://eff.org
>>>     jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>
>>>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>>
>>>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 16:08:20 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:08:20 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <5408A1D7.8000002@cis-india.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>
	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
	<CAOi1r6aDndCHmpqHwsBov0MycQBmUgxEqt+=ZgHVwZESNjky1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54063A7F.8000103@wzb.eu>
	<5408A1D7.8000002@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA8UWMwM_mHqsArqy97rsLOPndrme+wZLC=Xyxed0V5VTA@mail.gmail.com>

I suggest we find someone who has been closely following the internal UN
discussions to address Pranesh's question.  I certainly have heard that
numerous countries have raised questions about extending the IGF, but I
don't have first hand information on that.


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
wrote:

> Dear Jeanette and all,
> Do we know of anyone who is opposed to:
>
>         * Renewal of the IGF's mandate for another 5/10 years? or
>         * Having an open-ended mandate for the IGF?
>
> It would be useful to know who exactly are opposed to these and why.
>
> Stephanie, you mentioned that I was "voicing concerns that we have heard
> from both govt and business".  Could you please specify which government
> delegations and which businesses / business associations you have heard
> this from?  Thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-002 23:45:35 +0200
> ]:
>
>>
>>
>> Stephanie did circulate our second version today. You should have got it.
>>
>> Meanwhile, there is a chance that some governments will also endorse it.
>> We are working on this right now.
>>
>> The statement, sort of born at the BB meeting, could become an informal
>> or formal outcome of the IGF.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 02.09.14 16:55, schrieb Andrew Puddephatt:
>>
>>> can both statements - short and long be posted for approval?
>>>
>>>  *Andrew Puddephatt*
>>>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>>>> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 September 2014 13:35, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
>>>     wrote:
>>>
>>>      > Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits
>>>     meeting
>>>      > earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
>>>      > Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement
>>>     which is
>>>      > in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>>>      > The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version
>>>     starting
>>>      > at line 325.
>>>      > Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits
>>>     can be
>>>      > made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of
>>> Thursday
>>>      > Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>>>
>>>     So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>>>
>>>     1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
>>>     https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
>>>     *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>>>
>>>     2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325
>>>     which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension
>>>     and other issues.[1]
>>>
>>>     3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
>>>     establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum
>>>     within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and
>>>     strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus*
>>>     outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>>>
>>>     MY QUESTION:
>>>
>>>     It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
>>>     individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens
>>>     with 1 and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our
>>>     meeting page at http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what
>>>     would be an appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show
>>>     support for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the
>>>     consensus that we reached on 3)?
>>>
>>>
>>>     [0] Current full text below:
>>>
>>>     In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the
>>>     Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for
>>>     multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>>>     Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>>>
>>>     The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues
>>>     relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those
>>>     enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the
>>>     sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of
>>>     the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was
>>>     not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or
>>>     organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
>>>     non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
>>>     day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>>>
>>>     The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
>>>     desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal
>>>     consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its
>>>     creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
>>>     regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to
>>>     extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the
>>>     IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global
>>>     Internet governance”.
>>>
>>>     In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum,
>>>     the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and
>>>     valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the
>>>     private sector and international organizations discuss important
>>>     questions of economic and social development. They share their
>>>     insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the
>>>     Internet’s great potential.
>>>
>>>     The Secretary-General recommended that
>>>     (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended
>>>     for a further five years;
>>>     (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by
>>> Member
>>>     States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of
>>>     the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>>
>>>     Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
>>>     preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for
>>>     development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of
>>>     2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>>>
>>>     The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated
>>>     in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014,
>>>     that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>     (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made
>>>     by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial
>>>     Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as
>>>     a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues
>>>     with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways
>>>     to address them.”
>>>
>>>     In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of
>>>     IGF.  We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven
>>>     its worth. (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on
>>>     the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with
>>>     the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate and reliable
>>>     financial support. These two goals are interrelated.  To address the
>>>     need for sustainable funding, the Internet Governance Forum Support
>>>     Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014.  The
>>>     goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote sustainable
>>>     funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing
>>>     funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
>>>     are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet
>>>     community needs in order to continues its work for the global
>>>     Internet development goals.
>>>
>>>     Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the
>>>     continuing development of Internet governance and based on success
>>>     of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN
>>>     Secretary General to  establish the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent)
>>>     forum.  We believe that the IGF should move beyond its initiation
>>>     phase where repeated renewal by the UN General assembly is required
>>>     and that it be allowed to do long range planning for its continuing
>>>     and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary General
>>>     work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure
>>>     and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder
>>> foundation.
>>>
>>>
>>>     [1] Current full text below:
>>>
>>>     We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
>>>     re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying
>>>     concerns  for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
>>>     this 2014 IGF  in Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and
>>>     then the specific  demands below)
>>>
>>>     1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom
>>>     of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in
>>>     relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore
>>>     Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum
>>>     and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to
>>>     human rights.
>>>
>>>     2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>>>     multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should
>>>     be reformed and strengthened.
>>>
>>>     3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF
>>>     post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to
>>>     look at  potential changes that could lead to its further
>>> strengthening.
>>>
>>>     4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
>>>     express concerns about the number of new processes which civil
>>>     society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call
>>>     for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.
>>>
>>>     5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by,
>>>     for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA
>>>     and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to
>>>     use regional and national IGFs as part of this process.
>>>
>>>     6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
>>>     ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken
>>>     into account.
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Jeremy Malcolm
>>>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>     https://eff.org
>>>     jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>
>>>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>>
>>>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/c549043a/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Sep  4 16:43:37 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 22:43:37 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <540838C2.1000808@wzb.eu>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org>
	<EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba>
	<153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca>
	<D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
	<54081751.7060907@cdt.org>
	<540838C2.1000808@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20140904224337.62e23d4a@swan.bollow.ch>

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:02:42 +0200
Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> A second point, if the opposition of one member of the the CSCG would
> be enough for the SCSG to do its work, this would lend a very strong
> veto power to single members. In that case we would need a discussion
> of which groups and political positions we want to see represented on
> the SCSG.

So far CSCG's internal processes have worked reasonably well on the
basis of consensus-based decision-making, by which I mean that not
only will a proposed decision only become a decision in the absence of
objections, but also that everyone works together constructively
towards reaching consensus, i.e. there is an implied social contract of
not abusing the possibility of objecting.

Greetings,
Norbert
JNC co-convenor and JNC's representative in CSCG.

From steve at openmedia.ca  Thu Sep  4 19:36:37 2014
From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:36:37 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Net Neutrality resources
Message-ID: <CAJOr_J7Ys7oZnJA-gR=Sp0Wdm9JS7mL7D=dmZgxOZdZuyMe_Kw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all! Steve from OpenMedia here.


As most of you probably know we're building a network of organizations to
kick off a platform for express support for Net Neutrality next week.


We want to use the platform to amplify the work of organizations doing
amazing work to protect the open Internet and net neutrality around the
world. We hope to publicize these resources to over a hundred thousand (or
more) visitors to www.bigtelecomvstheworld.org.


If you know of a national Net Neutrality campaign or resource we should
publicize on the website please add here
<https://docs.google.com/a/openmedia.ca/document/d/1ZPzJXEmvbjejbZAlsTB4076mPJw-2clhjviRTaHkbCY/edit>
:

https://docs.google.com/a/openmedia.ca/document/d/1ZPzJXEmvbjejbZAlsTB4076mPJw-2clhjviRTaHkbCY/edit



Over 50 organizations from over 22 countries have joined the global
campaign including groups ranging from Korea to Cameroon to Brazil and
beyond! You can join the project here
<https://openmedia.org/international-network-open-internet> if you're
interested:
https://openmedia.org/international-network-open-internet

best,
--
*Steve Anderson*
Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca
604-837-5730
http://openmedia.ca <http://www.openmedia.ca/>
steve at openmedia.ca

Follow me on Twitter <http://twitter.com/Steve_Media>
Friend me on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/Steve.Media>


* *Let's have access to affordable phone and Internet rates.
<http://demandchoice.ca>*

**Do you think we deserve a fair deal in our digital future? -->>
OurFairDeal.org <http://OurFairDeal.org>*



*Confidentiality Warning:*

* This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use
of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return
e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank
you. Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout
fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de
ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une
information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le
destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie,
distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y
est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire
prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel
et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/6faaabf8/attachment.htm>

From g.astbrink at gsa.com.au  Thu Sep  4 20:18:17 2014
From: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au (Gunela Astbrink)
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:18:17 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] Invitation - IGF WS99 Digital inclusion policies for
 the forgotten billion
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk0o6Ts7ATVfghQhuvcGV5xmqTZ1udt4ApydPs5Dc4qm1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5407FFD7.2070704@gsa.com.au> <CAM9VJk0o6Ts7ATVfghQhuvcGV5xmqTZ1udt4ApydPs5Dc4qm1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54090149.1000804@gsa.com.au>

Thank you, Joly.

There was a clear message to work on mechanisms to involve disability 
representatives within civil society to ensure that this voice is 
included in general internet governance discussions.

Gunela

Joly MacFie said the following on 5/09/14 03:38 :
> This session is archived at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0LAgt0_AI
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink at gsa.com.au
> <mailto:g.astbrink at gsa.com.au>> wrote:
>
>     You are invited to participate in WS99 Digital inclusion policies
>     for the forgotten billion in Workshop Room 01 (Rumeli Ground Floor /
>     Room B1) at 4.30pm this afternoon.
>
>     This workshop will discuss the role of disability in the
>     multi-stakeholder model. Perspectives will be provided from
>     representatives of international organisations such as ICANN, ISOC,
>     W3C, ITU and also insights from Asia and Africa.
>
>     Further information is at:
>     http://2014.intgovforum.org/__event/__130507d2f324b731b232bb8f878d80__87#.VAf5A0huGsF
>     <http://2014.intgovforum.org/event/130507d2f324b731b232bb8f878d8087#.VAf5A0huGsF>
>
>     Remote participation is at:
>     http://www.intgovforum.org/__cms/remote-participation-2014
>     <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation-2014>
>
>     We welcome your participation to find ways to ensure that the
>     disability voice is heard in internet governance.
>
>     Regards,
>     Gunela Astbrink
>     Director, Internet Society of Australia
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>   VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -

-- 
Gunela Astbrink
GSA InfoComm
PO Box 600
Ballina NSW 2478
Australia
Mobile: +61 417 715738
Email: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au
www.gsa.com.au

From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Fri Sep  5 00:47:50 2014
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 07:47:50 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <5408A1D7.8000002@cis-india.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>
 <CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
 <CAOi1r6aDndCHmpqHwsBov0MycQBmUgxEqt+=ZgHVwZESNjky1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <54063A7F.8000103@wzb.eu>
 <5408A1D7.8000002@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <20140905044748.GA31726@tarvainen.info>

On Sep 04 20:31, Pranesh Prakash (pranesh at cis-india.org) wrote:

> Do we know of anyone who is opposed to:
> 
> 	* Renewal of the IGF's mandate for another 5/10 years? or
> 	* Having an open-ended mandate for the IGF?

Of course we know. But they won't say so in public, nor will
I name them or my sources in a public mailing list.

> It would be useful to know who exactly are opposed to these and why.

And for that very reason they won't come out in the open about it,
let alone explain their reasons publicly any sooner than they must.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

From joy at apc.org  Fri Sep  5 04:39:38 2014
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:39:38 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] Internet rights at HRC27
Message-ID: <540976CA.2030306@apc.org>

Dear friends,
Sharing the APC and AccessNow brieg on internet rights at the 2th
session of the UN Human Rights Council, which starts next week:
 http://bit.ly/1qsR1pd
apologies in advance for any cross posting
Regards
Joy Liddicoat
www.apc.org


From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 04:42:05 2014
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:42:05 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Internet rights at HRC27
In-Reply-To: <540976CA.2030306@apc.org>
References: <540976CA.2030306@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeHbrg3HwOyJuCmmpWPqydhrX6HTTrC3pA90Ys=miVD49Q@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Joy.


--

Best Regards,
​​
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
Tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120
@ekenyanito
Skype: ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1


On 5 September 2014 11:39, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear friends,
> Sharing the APC and AccessNow brieg on internet rights at the 2th
> session of the UN Human Rights Council, which starts next week:
>  http://bit.ly/1qsR1pd
> apologies in advance for any cross posting
> Regards
> Joy Liddicoat
> www.apc.org
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140905/d06b30a7/attachment.htm>

From ngreen260 at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 04:55:46 2014
From: ngreen260 at gmail.com (Natalie Green)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:55:46 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IGF statements
Message-ID: <CAJSziHo5fS1C7JN9-O+mKtzXaV4RUi6tXDA-gRfw6DbN7dS0Cw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

Just passing along some relevant links. First here's a statement from a
variety of stakeholders in support of IGF renewal:
http://igfcontinuation.org/

Now this one is a consensus statement that came out of the Best Bits
pre-IGF meeting. Feel free to sign up your organization or yourself as a
supporter: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/

Thanks so much for attending! The report of the BB meeting will go out next
week.

Best,
Natalie
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140905/b23a2419/attachment.htm>

From deborah at apc.org  Fri Sep  5 05:35:43 2014
From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:35:43 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
In-Reply-To: <4C4D75FE-6ED5-4F40-A68E-F6C6E46E346E@eff.org>
References: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <54082849.3030307@apc.org> <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFuLSeis69oWhtbmjTUrLSC3X=yfBLidXUHsudeW0R5zg@mail.gmail.com> <4A14F7DC-83C3-47E6-9579-68F8053B55EE@eff.org> <5408594E.9000802@digitaldissidents.org> <4C4D75FE-6ED5-4F40-A68E-F6C6E46E346E@eff.org>
Message-ID: <540983EF.7020106@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

APC will support this as well, but agree with Niels- preference for
point 6 (on Turkey) as point 1.

What's the plan for presenting this? The stock tacking session just
concluded. Burcu, would you be willing to refer to the statement in
your closing remarks?

Deborah

On 9/4/14 3:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Niels ten Oever
> <lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
> 
>> Signed PGP part We will support this. Even though I would prefer
>> to make point 6 point 1. Is there opposition against that?
> 
> Yes there was as Access wanted it at the end - IMHO either start or
> end are strong places for it.
> 
>> Could we also make this a Best Bits statement instead of a
>> sign-on statement? (Sorry for now being more acquainted with the
>> process.)
> 
> I don't think so - we had a show of hands at the meeting in support
> of what is now paragraph 1 and this will be reflected in the record
> of the meeting, but the other paragraphs are somewhat novel and the
> opt-in sign-on is a more appropriate procedure for those.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=jBll
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From anne at webfoundation.org  Mon Sep  1 04:43:42 2014
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:43:42 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com>
 <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com>

Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would add
to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems just as
important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.

WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for this
purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it is
considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps it's
enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable funding that is
transparently accounted for.

cheers
Anne




On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>
wrote:

> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial final
> declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF should do better in
> linking its agenda and wok with the regional IGFs.
>
> e
>
> Eduardo
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Agree.
>>
>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>
>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
>> Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working
>> group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will
>> be
>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia:
>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative
>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy
>> options;
>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF,
>> including
>> through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions
>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both
>> long
>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
>> identification of
>> possible ways to address them."
>>
>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a
>> permanent body instead of  renewing its mandate for another limited term of
>> 5 or 10 years."
>>
>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>
>> best
>>
>> joana
>>
>>
>>  On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé <
>> joao.caribe at me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count
>>> me on to support as I can.
>>>
>>> _
>>> João Carlos Caribé
>>> (021) 8761 1967
>>> (021) 4042 7727
>>> Skype joaocaribe
>>> Enviado via iPad
>>>
>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> escreveu:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement
>>> that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing
>>> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>> >
>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
>>> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
>>> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
>>> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
>>> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
>>> statement.)
>>> >
>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is
>>> only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups.
>>> So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>> support in civil society.
>>> >
>>> > jeanette
>>> >
>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://www.webfoundation.org/> |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/ecba6a5d/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Fri Sep  5 05:45:07 2014
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:45:07 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony
In-Reply-To: <D2F96E4C-F689-40B0-9AB7-A94EFD273B45@cafonso.ca>
References: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org>
 <5408586A.4010502@digitaldissidents.org> <58C90741-6020-4C7F-9ECA-D547FD0FB2CF@accessnow.org>
 <D2F96E4C-F689-40B0-9AB7-A94EFD273B45@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTp_FnxPaGSoh4_izvvvXEoqgFC+ikU=n3pmgyd5fGdZrg@mail.gmail.com>

rock it, Burcu!

I would suggest that IGF 2015 gets revitalized, both in terms of format and
dynamics, also building into previous innovative and creative ways of
online public consultations to include people outside IG community...

As it happens in other foras, it would be great if it can become an space
also for makers, hackers, artists doing hands on activities to... save the
net :)



On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> She has only 5 minutes... :)
>
> sent from a dumbphone
>
> > On 04/09/2014, at 15:21, Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org> wrote:
> >
> > Congrats!!
> >
> > Please mention the 13 principles:
> >
> > Necessaryandproportionate.org
> >
> > Brett
> >
> >
> > Sent from my phone
> >
> >> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Niels ten Oever <
> lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Dear Burcu,
> >>
> >> It would be great if you could make the points mentioned in the Best
> >> Bits statement: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/
> >>
> >> Personally I would really appreciate it if you could make a strong
> >> reference to the situation in Turkey and perhaps also refer to the
> >> situation in Azerbaijan that worsened since the the IGF was organized
> >> there.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Niels
> >>
> >> - --
> >> Niels ten Oever
> >> Head of Digital
> >>
> >> Article 19
> >> www.article19.org
> >>
> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> >>
> >>> On 09/04/2014 02:37 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Bestbits friends,
> >>>
> >>> Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am
> >>> pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing
> >>> ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind
> >>> words -- very much appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the
> >>> issues we care. Please send me your suggestions.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Burcu
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You
> >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> >>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> >>
> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCFhqAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpDdgH/0S6lqFkYjJ/xkIRHoA+HfQ1
> >> 6R7vPLX8y9g1Nw3YEs7bdmzPeT/eXcXt5HaWYxIHd8Eis9WlxsAO8Sb9QJiV0JSS
> >> 8ZwHoS6aQVD1YBrkw1kAqCQ9FCHIYQ8ORvW6etlao6b4Cf9P2wsBRIBXP4yRhx4E
> >> AA7LaniMt3KKSTp2vaisjCCWnCt6QhE5CZ/eeP86uZFukkQqKJa+ziy71v9c0Ygv
> >> fpUyytERaMTzQ4GoVr4nER3Tqc4ig/WsjfiPkqDxyjHighS+gTkZl4fsycwhhdOL
> >> 9YtAOfWHu1oooBSTxtYdEQJQNP22O56D5psUENB1Wh8zd8Mmg/+CcU5oPed8HbA=
> >> =o/f5
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140905/c47a3e10/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Sep  5 05:50:49 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:20:49 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTp_FnxPaGSoh4_izvvvXEoqgFC+ikU=n3pmgyd5fGdZrg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org> <5408586A.4010502@digitaldissidents.org> <58C90741-6020-4C7F-9ECA-D547FD0FB2CF@accessnow.org> <D2F96E4C-F689-40B0-9AB7-A94EFD273B45@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiTp_FnxPaGSoh4_izvvvXEoqgFC+ikU=n3pmgyd5fGdZrg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54098779.7040809@itforchange.net>


Best wishes Burcu

This is late in coming, but connecting IG to your area of work directly, 
you may want to say something about how allocation of .health tld to a 
group that talks about 'safe drugs' which as you know is also US 
pharma's code word for US IP law complaint drugs impacts access to 
health and medicines related rights of people...

The owners of the .health are going to actually police this tld and it 
wont be just an open tld that anyone can use.... This is a big set back 
to public interest in this area, which highlights why ICANN requires 
public interest oversight, which is really effective and which related 
to global public interest..

parminder


On Friday 05 September 2014 03:15 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
> rock it, Burcu!
>
> I would suggest that IGF 2015 gets revitalized, both in terms of 
> format and dynamics, also building into previous innovative and 
> creative ways of online public consultations to include people outside 
> IG community...
>
> As it happens in other foras, it would be great if it can become an 
> space also for makers, hackers, artists doing hands on activities 
> to... save the net :)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca 
> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>
>     She has only 5 minutes... :)
>
>     sent from a dumbphone
>
>     > On 04/09/2014, at 15:21, Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org
>     <mailto:brett at accessnow.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Congrats!!
>     >
>     > Please mention the 13 principles:
>     >
>     > Necessaryandproportionate.org
>     >
>     > Brett
>     >
>     >
>     > Sent from my phone
>     >
>     >> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Niels ten Oever
>     <lists at digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>>
>     wrote:
>     >>
>     >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>     >> Hash: SHA1
>     >>
>     >> Dear Burcu,
>     >>
>     >> It would be great if you could make the points mentioned in the
>     Best
>     >> Bits statement: http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/
>     >>
>     >> Personally I would really appreciate it if you could make a strong
>     >> reference to the situation in Turkey and perhaps also refer to the
>     >> situation in Azerbaijan that worsened since the the IGF was
>     organized
>     >> there.
>     >>
>     >> Best,
>     >>
>     >> Niels
>     >>
>     >> - --
>     >> Niels ten Oever
>     >> Head of Digital
>     >>
>     >> Article 19
>     >> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
>     >>
>     >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>     >>
>     >>> On 09/04/2014 02:37 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> Dear Bestbits friends,
>     >>>
>     >>> Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am
>     >>> pleased to inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing
>     >>> ceremony CSO speaker. Thanks for the nomination and all your kind
>     >>> words -- very much appreciated.
>     >>>
>     >>> I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the
>     >>> issues we care. Please send me your suggestions.
>     >>>
>     >>> Best,
>     >>>
>     >>> Burcu
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>     >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To unsubscribe or change your
>     >>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>     >>
>     >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>     >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>     >>
>     >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCFhqAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpDdgH/0S6lqFkYjJ/xkIRHoA+HfQ1
>     >> 6R7vPLX8y9g1Nw3YEs7bdmzPeT/eXcXt5HaWYxIHd8Eis9WlxsAO8Sb9QJiV0JSS
>     >> 8ZwHoS6aQVD1YBrkw1kAqCQ9FCHIYQ8ORvW6etlao6b4Cf9P2wsBRIBXP4yRhx4E
>     >> AA7LaniMt3KKSTp2vaisjCCWnCt6QhE5CZ/eeP86uZFukkQqKJa+ziy71v9c0Ygv
>     >> fpUyytERaMTzQ4GoVr4nER3Tqc4ig/WsjfiPkqDxyjHighS+gTkZl4fsycwhhdOL
>     >> 9YtAOfWHu1oooBSTxtYdEQJQNP22O56D5psUENB1Wh8zd8Mmg/+CcU5oPed8HbA=
>     >> =o/f5
>     >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>     >> ____________________________________________________________
>     >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140905/7015c089/attachment.htm>

From brett at accessnow.org  Fri Sep  5 05:53:46 2014
From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:53:46 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
In-Reply-To: <540983EF.7020106@apc.org>
References: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <54082849.3030307@apc.org> <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFuLSeis69oWhtbmjTUrLSC3X=yfBLidXUHsudeW0R5zg@mail.gmail.com> <4A14F7DC-83C3-47E6-9579-68F8053B55EE@eff.org> <5408594E.9000802@digitaldissidents.org> <4C4D75FE-6ED5-4F40-A68E-F6C6E46E346E@eff.org> <540983EF.7020106@apc.org>
Message-ID: <67353AEA-C655-4EBE-B14B-B290FF4ACE1B@accessnow.org>

FYI. I just thought as a statement on IGF, we should keep it as such and therefore the Turkish point should neither be 1 or 6. But rather include it as the concluding paragraph after the last point (5). I don't feel that strongly about it and feel free to move it back to 1, as the sentiment is essential. We will also sign. Burcu please do include in closing remarks if poss.  Brett 


Sent from my phone 

> On Sep 5, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> APC will support this as well, but agree with Niels- preference for
> point 6 (on Turkey) as point 1.
> 
> What's the plan for presenting this? The stock tacking session just
> concluded. Burcu, would you be willing to refer to the statement in
> your closing remarks?
> 
> Deborah
> 
>> On 9/4/14 3:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Niels ten Oever
>> <lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Signed PGP part We will support this. Even though I would prefer
>>> to make point 6 point 1. Is there opposition against that?
>> 
>> Yes there was as Access wanted it at the end - IMHO either start or
>> end are strong places for it.
>> 
>>> Could we also make this a Best Bits statement instead of a
>>> sign-on statement? (Sorry for now being more acquainted with the
>>> process.)
>> 
>> I don't think so - we had a show of hands at the meeting in support
>> of what is now paragraph 1 and this will be reflected in the record
>> of the meeting, but the other paragraphs are somewhat novel and the
>> opt-in sign-on is a more appropriate procedure for those.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> 
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUCYPvAAoJEPeieloNaneNgvkP/i0xLFtciarLEkZW41QbxcaL
> bcjRvHYfzPsTqeSI/KC+zGiI49bae3MmyG3c7O7YgkXFxy35s05wABpplU60iSKP
> mPDRCu263kCOvSR1cDxa8axIqvqUDbYhKuZ37hUMcI1rO1ksseHS3/WGiwsgYZhk
> VoeEcGLXeVyLvEE6ibYMBrLq4tTx0YZIY5bIFbjVrW73kY9z5KT3VAHplOirT36T
> xDXJ7EnofF89ztAXL2Hri0GF5o3t2mTlqCe8fASioWheJG9SHZnnxSZHIdnnoW0o
> XhnYIFjs2O7EU5y03XDFBXQtqPv0Pwv+tT0owY8IUQ6yOU06uSkb8BIrDWeiX91P
> v0G9reBbVlYDVE1trtb5+lWVkROLqdTd2fAoFGe47hLy/I79rA+Tn3Kp/7ZnFqF5
> 2zeNHvB2eGcEJr+fpUsES5Ps+b51TSnm12KK44NjLuLZJusvbCTbuEgLwYmppE5n
> 2kaimQfSgXM5gejMBulVB970E+Tr1dX9fBpHTov5bMNiv7i7lgyOTGqluwSu3eY4
> aD9Cc5c5XFQcSBJqG+qBD9qPL0oWUkbh69eSra7bWaGYWwp9j47IigehI27NUj11
> o0b68Mi4bDX+EVNGDBoWDt5lVVtlipGt5lcn00dvebl2ZppassB98pLj1oyreJS7
> JXvL1wD90sA4KQrNSrFk
> =jBll
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From subi.igp at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 07:55:15 2014
From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 17:25:15 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Closing Ceremony
In-Reply-To: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org>
References: <BCEC7CCD-D34C-4023-9343-D3F1EFEC517F@citizen.org>
Message-ID: <CAFfuWVknB4wN6uT1=0vR0WkgsKdMwJoyiF7o5uKJsnBdfVa4jw@mail.gmail.com>

We know you'll rock.

There's a reason why the IGF moves to a different country and region each
year.

Ensuring the host country CS perspective and participation in planning is
essential to both strengthening the IGF and ensuring it stays relevant.
Also more space and support  for national and regional perspectives and
initiatives.

And lastly a call for continuation of the mandate and better disemination
of good/best practices at the IGF.

Best wishes the Internet calls for more youth n longevity of and at the IGF.

Good luck Burcu.

And safe travels all.

The Open mic and the closing ceremony will both take place in the main audi.

To all those  remote participants join us do please log in and contribute
your voice counts.

Warmest

Subi Chaturvedi

On 4 Sep 2014 17:07, "Burcu Kilic" <bkilic at citizen.org> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Bestbits friends,
>
> Hope you are enjoying your time in my beautiful country. I am pleased to
inform you that I have been confirmed as a closing ceremony CSO speaker.
Thanks for the nomination and all your kind words -- very much appreciated.
>
> I have only 5 minutes but I will try my best to raise all the issues we
care. Please send me your suggestions.
>
> Best,
>
> Burcu
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140905/0afbc4b0/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Sep  5 08:47:06 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 08:47:06 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Renewal of the IGF Mandate:  Please Sign on to the
 Letter
Message-ID: <5409B0CA.1010708@mail.utoronto.ca>


Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum:
This is further to our message of September 4th, portions of which follow:

At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various 
stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate 
extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the 
organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for 
projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not 
just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended 
re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We 
request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on 
or before November 1.
  .......
UPDATE
We have created a neutral website for this project at 
www.igfcontinuation.org, to accept sign-ons of organizations, countries, 
and individuals. Please note that this is a different URL from the one 
circulated yesterday.
The undersigned will continue to collect your signatures and description 
of your organization if you have
trouble signing on.

As of 15:30 UTC+2, September 5 we have been open for signatures less 
than 24 hours, and we have 18 organizations, and 35 individuals.

Examples of how you will be listed appear below, so please provide this 
information to us if you wish us to sign on for you.
1. Jane Smith Individual
2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manufacturers 
of widgets
3. [Country x] Government Please do not hesitate to contact us if you 
have questions.
Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center, jeanette at wzb.eu
Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN, 
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140905/477a82ca/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Sep  5 10:07:17 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 19:37:17 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <20140904224337.62e23d4a@swan.bollow.ch>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org>
	<EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba>
	<153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca>
	<D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
	<54081751.7060907@cdt.org>
	<540838C2.1000808@wzb.eu>
	<20140904224337.62e23d4a@swan.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHC+wzGxtSHyX1Mgek5X4auJpfryApScDc=srA9BWMhAoQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Glad to see the clarification on the role if the committee here. I think
ideally, the committee should not have attended the meeting, but should
have passed on the invitation to the CS people who participated in the
earlier meeting, who could have then passed on the relevant details to all
of us, and we could have deliberated on the whether question following
that. The CSCG was put into place simply to make nominations for processes
we have already agreed that we want to get involved in, and unless
otherwise agreed by the wider networks involved in it, should stick to that
role in my opinion.

On the actual question of whether we should put forward representatives
collectively: I think we should not, as this gives a multistakeholder
veneer to a process that isn't (and when I say 'multistakeholder', I think
of a process that very clearly adheres to the IG principles outlined in the
NETmundial outcome document). It also means that we give legitimacy to the
WEF as a venue to unite us all, which I don't want to do.

That doesn't mean, though, that I think civil society shouldn't be part of
this. I would be happy for organisations already involved in this, if they
are ready, to continue their work, including of informing us all, which I
think they have done well and which I have greatly appreciated.

Thanks and best,
Anja
On Sep 4, 2014 11:43 PM, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:02:42 +0200
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
> > A second point, if the opposition of one member of the the CSCG would
> > be enough for the SCSG to do its work, this would lend a very strong
> > veto power to single members. In that case we would need a discussion
> > of which groups and political positions we want to see represented on
> > the SCSG.
>
> So far CSCG's internal processes have worked reasonably well on the
> basis of consensus-based decision-making, by which I mean that not
> only will a proposed decision only become a decision in the absence of
> objections, but also that everyone works together constructively
> towards reaching consensus, i.e. there is an implied social contract of
> not abusing the possibility of objecting.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> JNC co-convenor and JNC's representative in CSCG.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140905/1932923e/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 11:01:46 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:01:46 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHC+wzGxtSHyX1Mgek5X4auJpfryApScDc=srA9BWMhAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org>
	<EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba>
	<153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca>
	<D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
	<54081751.7060907@cdt.org>
	<540838C2.1000808@wzb.eu>
	<20140904224337.62e23d4a@swan.bollow.ch>
	<CAJqNAHC+wzGxtSHyX1Mgek5X4auJpfryApScDc=srA9BWMhAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA9F=vYwT_qvmK_8brGZsDuYd0ccUo=EJ0H6rVGrnd3OYA@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Anja.


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Glad to see the clarification on the role if the committee here. I think
> ideally, the committee should not have attended the meeting, but should
> have passed on the invitation to the CS people who participated in the
> earlier meeting, who could have then passed on the relevant details to all
> of us, and we could have deliberated on the whether question following
> that. The CSCG was put into place simply to make nominations for processes
> we have already agreed that we want to get involved in, and unless
> otherwise agreed by the wider networks involved in it, should stick to that
> role in my opinion.
>
> On the actual question of whether we should put forward representatives
> collectively: I think we should not, as this gives a multistakeholder
> veneer to a process that isn't (and when I say 'multistakeholder', I think
> of a process that very clearly adheres to the IG principles outlined in the
> NETmundial outcome document). It also means that we give legitimacy to the
> WEF as a venue to unite us all, which I don't want to do.
>
> That doesn't mean, though, that I think civil society shouldn't be part of
> this. I would be happy for organisations already involved in this, if they
> are ready, to continue their work, including of informing us all, which I
> think they have done well and which I have greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
> On Sep 4, 2014 11:43 PM, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:02:42 +0200
>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>> > A second point, if the opposition of one member of the the CSCG would
>> > be enough for the SCSG to do its work, this would lend a very strong
>> > veto power to single members. In that case we would need a discussion
>> > of which groups and political positions we want to see represented on
>> > the SCSG.
>>
>> So far CSCG's internal processes have worked reasonably well on the
>> basis of consensus-based decision-making, by which I mean that not
>> only will a proposed decision only become a decision in the absence of
>> objections, but also that everyone works together constructively
>> towards reaching consensus, i.e. there is an implied social contract of
>> not abusing the possibility of objecting.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> JNC co-convenor and JNC's representative in CSCG.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140905/5a1bbb91/attachment.htm>

From anne at webfoundation.org  Fri Sep  5 11:07:05 2014
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 17:07:05 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA9F=vYwT_qvmK_8brGZsDuYd0ccUo=EJ0H6rVGrnd3OYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba>
 <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
 <54081751.7060907@cdt.org> <540838C2.1000808@wzb.eu> <20140904224337.62e23d4a@swan.bollow.ch>
 <CAJqNAHC+wzGxtSHyX1Mgek5X4auJpfryApScDc=srA9BWMhAoQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+4KnA9F=vYwT_qvmK_8brGZsDuYd0ccUo=EJ0H6rVGrnd3OYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbFGEpywX4su-9Y738rsBP=F1eFvCAj=7R1n5=dJUOp6Qg@mail.gmail.com>

+1 from me as well.
Anne


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree with Anja.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Glad to see the clarification on the role if the committee here. I think
>> ideally, the committee should not have attended the meeting, but should
>> have passed on the invitation to the CS people who participated in the
>> earlier meeting, who could have then passed on the relevant details to all
>> of us, and we could have deliberated on the whether question following
>> that. The CSCG was put into place simply to make nominations for processes
>> we have already agreed that we want to get involved in, and unless
>> otherwise agreed by the wider networks involved in it, should stick to that
>> role in my opinion.
>>
>> On the actual question of whether we should put forward representatives
>> collectively: I think we should not, as this gives a multistakeholder
>> veneer to a process that isn't (and when I say 'multistakeholder', I think
>> of a process that very clearly adheres to the IG principles outlined in the
>> NETmundial outcome document). It also means that we give legitimacy to the
>> WEF as a venue to unite us all, which I don't want to do.
>>
>> That doesn't mean, though, that I think civil society shouldn't be part
>> of this. I would be happy for organisations already involved in this, if
>> they are ready, to continue their work, including of informing us all,
>> which I think they have done well and which I have greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>> On Sep 4, 2014 11:43 PM, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:02:42 +0200
>>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> > A second point, if the opposition of one member of the the CSCG would
>>> > be enough for the SCSG to do its work, this would lend a very strong
>>> > veto power to single members. In that case we would need a discussion
>>> > of which groups and political positions we want to see represented on
>>> > the SCSG.
>>>
>>> So far CSCG's internal processes have worked reasonably well on the
>>> basis of consensus-based decision-making, by which I mean that not
>>> only will a proposed decision only become a decision in the absence of
>>> objections, but also that everyone works together constructively
>>> towards reaching consensus, i.e. there is an implied social contract of
>>> not abusing the possibility of objecting.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> JNC co-convenor and JNC's representative in CSCG.
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://www.webfoundation.org/> |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140905/bce3a600/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Sep  5 16:54:15 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 06:54:15 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] WEF
Message-ID: <7D276DF240AB4F4FAE243F33ED538D7F@Toshiba>

Please note that CSCG received an email yesterday from Alan Marcus of World Economic Forum, in reply to ours requesting clarification on various issues as regards possible appointment of civil society reps and asking for more time. Alan had already left IGF.

The letter really clarified nothing. But it did say that yes we could have more time (how much not specified). Here is the text

“I believe I understand your questions and concerns. And certainly with other consultations through out the week I believe I have a much better appreciation for where the concerns come from and what the opportunities for collaborative impact can be. 

As should be the case, the feedback points to improvement opportunities for which we are prepared to evolve our thinking. 

For now I can agree to give more time and we will take some time as well to ensure out "tweaks" are well thought through a(nd) reflect feedback we have received. “

So I think this is all on hold at present – for how long we dont know, and if anyone has further information please pass it on (confidentially if you wish).

One of the changes certainly seems to be that they will drop the NetMundial Initiative name; at least for now This was mentioned at several meetings throughout the week, and apparently they received a lot of negative feedback on this.

What will happen as regards CS reps is unknown – we had their earlier agreement to appoint 4 reps, but this may be one of the “tweaks” that change. Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.

CSCG  will not be doing anything without further clarification.

Ian Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140906/7deb253b/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Sep  5 18:47:12 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:47:12 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] WEF
In-Reply-To: <7D276DF240AB4F4FAE243F33ED538D7F@Toshiba>
References: <7D276DF240AB4F4FAE243F33ED538D7F@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <540A3D70.9060104@wzb.eu>

Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.

This is indeed a remarkable comment but, probably unlike what Anja 
recommends, I would say that the selection committee really should not 
be in the business of assessing the process or structure for which it 
selects candidates.

jeanette


Am 05.09.14 22:54, schrieb Ian Peter:
> Please note that CSCG received an email yesterday from Alan Marcus of
> World Economic Forum, in reply to ours requesting clarification on
> various issues as regards possible appointment of civil society reps and
> asking for more time. Alan had already left IGF.
> The letter really clarified nothing. But it did say that yes we could
> have more time (how much not specified). Here is the text
> “I believe I understand your questions and concerns. And certainly with
> other consultations through out the week I believe I have a much better
> appreciation for where the concerns come from and what the opportunities
> for collaborative impact can be.
> As should be the case, the feedback points to improvement opportunities
> for which we are prepared to evolve our thinking.
> For now I can agree to give more time and we will take some time as well
> to ensure out "tweaks" are well thought through a(nd) reflect feedback
> we have received. “
> So I think this is all on hold at present – for how long we dont know,
> and if anyone has further information please pass it on (confidentially
> if you wish).
> One of the changes certainly seems to be that they will drop the
> NetMundial Initiative name; at least for now This was mentioned at
> several meetings throughout the week, and apparently they received a lot
> of negative feedback on this.
> What will happen as regards CS reps is unknown – we had their earlier
> agreement to appoint 4 reps, but this may be one of the “tweaks” that
> change. Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.
> CSCG  will not be doing anything without further clarification.
> Ian Peter
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Mon Sep  1 04:51:03 2014
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:51:03 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
 <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140901085101.GA28527@tarvainen.info>

+1

On Sep 01 08:31, Andrew Puddephatt (andrew at gp-digital.org) wrote:

> i would support such an initiative
> 
> *Andrew Puddephatt*
> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1 September 2014 09:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
> > would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
> > mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
> >
> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
> > stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
> > draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
> > and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
> > too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
> > coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
> > statement.)
> >
> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an
> > idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with
> > this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
> > find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil
> > society.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
> > does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?

From nb at bollow.ch  Sat Sep  6 03:03:40 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 09:03:40 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHC+wzGxtSHyX1Mgek5X4auJpfryApScDc=srA9BWMhAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org>
	<EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba>
	<153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca>
	<D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
	<54081751.7060907@cdt.org>
	<540838C2.1000808@wzb.eu>
	<20140904224337.62e23d4a@swan.bollow.ch>
	<CAJqNAHC+wzGxtSHyX1Mgek5X4auJpfryApScDc=srA9BWMhAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140906090340.444f3166@swan.bollow.ch>

Dear all

I'd like to quickly clarify that my remark below on the nature of the
consensus processes within CSCG (to which Anja replied) was *only*
intended to assure everyone that JNC is not attempting to claim any
kind of unreasonable veto power within CSCG. (I had interpreted some
earlier postings as expressing concern in that direction between the
lines.)

In particular it was not my intention to in any way take over any
aspect of the roles of Jeremy (who is the representative of BestBits in
CSCG) and Ian (who is CSCG's non-voting chair).

Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition and JNC's represwentative in JNC
(and for that reason not intervening in any of the BestBits-internal
discussions on any of the matters which Anja addresses below, except to
answer any questions or misunderstandings regarding JNC and our
positions.)


On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 19:37:17 +0530
Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Glad to see the clarification on the role if the committee here. I
> think ideally, the committee should not have attended the meeting,
> but should have passed on the invitation to the CS people who
> participated in the earlier meeting, who could have then passed on
> the relevant details to all of us, and we could have deliberated on
> the whether question following that. The CSCG was put into place
> simply to make nominations for processes we have already agreed that
> we want to get involved in, and unless otherwise agreed by the wider
> networks involved in it, should stick to that role in my opinion.
> 
> On the actual question of whether we should put forward
> representatives collectively: I think we should not, as this gives a
> multistakeholder veneer to a process that isn't (and when I say
> 'multistakeholder', I think of a process that very clearly adheres to
> the IG principles outlined in the NETmundial outcome document). It
> also means that we give legitimacy to the WEF as a venue to unite us
> all, which I don't want to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean, though, that I think civil society shouldn't be
> part of this. I would be happy for organisations already involved in
> this, if they are ready, to continue their work, including of
> informing us all, which I think they have done well and which I have
> greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
> On Sep 4, 2014 11:43 PM, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:02:42 +0200
> > Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >
> > > A second point, if the opposition of one member of the the CSCG
> > > would be enough for the SCSG to do its work, this would lend a
> > > very strong veto power to single members. In that case we would
> > > need a discussion of which groups and political positions we want
> > > to see represented on the SCSG.
> >
> > So far CSCG's internal processes have worked reasonably well on the
> > basis of consensus-based decision-making, by which I mean that not
> > only will a proposed decision only become a decision in the absence
> > of objections, but also that everyone works together constructively
> > towards reaching consensus, i.e. there is an implied social
> > contract of not abusing the possibility of objecting.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > JNC co-convenor and JNC's representative in CSCG.
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >


From avri at acm.org  Sat Sep  6 04:22:25 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 11:22:25 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] BestBits statement
In-Reply-To: <67353AEA-C655-4EBE-B14B-B290FF4ACE1B@accessnow.org>
References: <540825A0.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <54082849.3030307@apc.org> <CAJtCmGQG0OFK0pNMuQYxsGjgmDYsqtAwLgms4ThVTq_XEm3QGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFuLSeis69oWhtbmjTUrLSC3X=yfBLidXUHsudeW0R5zg@mail.gmail.com> <4A14F7DC-83C3-47E6-9579-68F8053B55EE@eff.org> <5408594E.9000802@digitaldissidents.org> <4C4D75FE-6ED5-4F40-A68E-F6C6E46E346E@eff.org> <540983EF.7020106@apc.org> <67353AEA-C655-4EBE-B14B-B290FF4ACE1B@accessnow.org>
Message-ID: <540AC441.2000003@acm.org>

Hi,

I agree with this.  Additionally, the letter has already been signed and
changing or withdrawing it at this point, would not helpful to the main
purpose which is asking for the continuation of the IGF while making
other points.

avri

On 05-Sep-14 12:53, Brett Solomon wrote:
> FYI. I just thought as a statement on IGF, we should keep it as such
> and therefore the Turkish point should neither be 1 or 6. But rather
> include it as the concluding paragraph after the last point (5). I
> don't feel that strongly about it and feel free to move it back to 1,
> as the sentiment is essential. We will also sign. Burcu please do
> include in closing remarks if poss.  Brett
> 
> 
> Sent from my phone
> 
>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
> APC will support this as well, but agree with Niels- preference for 
> point 6 (on Turkey) as point 1.
> 
> What's the plan for presenting this? The stock tacking session just 
> concluded. Burcu, would you be willing to refer to the statement in 
> your closing remarks?
> 
> Deborah
> 
>>>> On 9/4/14 3:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On Sep 4, 2014, at
>>>> 3:21 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Signed PGP part We will support this. Even though I would
>>>>> prefer to make point 6 point 1. Is there opposition against
>>>>> that?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes there was as Access wanted it at the end - IMHO either
>>>> start or end are strong places for it.
>>>> 
>>>>> Could we also make this a Best Bits statement instead of a 
>>>>> sign-on statement? (Sorry for now being more acquainted with
>>>>> the process.)
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think so - we had a show of hands at the meeting in
>>>> support of what is now paragraph 1 and this will be reflected
>>>> in the record of the meeting, but the other paragraphs are
>>>> somewhat novel and the opt-in sign-on is a more appropriate
>>>> procedure for those.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your 
>>>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Sep  6 05:30:52 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 19:30:52 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] WEF
In-Reply-To: <540A3D70.9060104@wzb.eu>
References: <7D276DF240AB4F4FAE243F33ED538D7F@Toshiba> <540A3D70.9060104@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <B6812540639C47FE8350CA8A65BBAA53@Toshiba>

This all needs to be clarified, Jeanette...

But the primary difficulty is that civil society currently has no forum or
methodology to come to a decision on any difficult policy issue; and 
particularly to
do so within any quick time frame.

Each individual coalition comes to its own decision; or, in the case of
some groups, can't come to any decision. The
CSCG, I believe, had to discuss what to do in this context
after receiving feedback from its member coalitions.

I agree totally CSCG should ideally not be involved in policy, and in this
case time was made for each group to discuss its position and advise. But
where there are strong and divided opinions between groups as to whether to
participate or not, CSCG may have to make some sort of call as to whether to
engage or not, and under what conditions. Unless and until there is some 
sort of
overall civil society policy making structure devised, I don't see the
alternative.

And the primary dilemma is this; irrespective of the arguments in this
particular case, if civil society has no capacity to come to a decision
within a reasonable time frame as to whether to participate in an
initiative - when it was asked to be involved - we are not likely to be
asked to be involved very often.  That I guess was the primary frustration
that led me to make the statement I did earlier on rather than remain in a
more comfortable neutral stance. A decision not to participate is fine; a
decision to participate is fine also; but a lack of capacity to make any
decision or to consider lengthy delays acceptable when we have a firm
deadline, is the most harmful thing we can do to our attempts to create a
credible united CS process when it comes to nominations.

Fortunately we now have more time, and looking back even the extended 
timetable we negotiated was too short in the context of IGF and people being 
so busy.

But we still have no methodology to make a decision, so I am not sure how 
more time will help. Most likely WEF will come up again with a
request for candidates, accompanied hopefully by some clear information, and 
we will start this debate again, once more with limited time to decide.

Can you suggest to me how we then make a policy decision across multiple 
civil
society groups in a reasonable time frame as to whether to engage or not?





Ian


-----Original Message----- 
From: Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 8:47 AM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] WEF

Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.

This is indeed a remarkable comment but, probably unlike what Anja
recommends, I would say that the selection committee really should not
be in the business of assessing the process or structure for which it
selects candidates.

jeanette


Am 05.09.14 22:54, schrieb Ian Peter:
> Please note that CSCG received an email yesterday from Alan Marcus of
> World Economic Forum, in reply to ours requesting clarification on
> various issues as regards possible appointment of civil society reps and
> asking for more time. Alan had already left IGF.
> The letter really clarified nothing. But it did say that yes we could
> have more time (how much not specified). Here is the text
> “I believe I understand your questions and concerns. And certainly with
> other consultations through out the week I believe I have a much better
> appreciation for where the concerns come from and what the opportunities
> for collaborative impact can be.
> As should be the case, the feedback points to improvement opportunities
> for which we are prepared to evolve our thinking.
> For now I can agree to give more time and we will take some time as well
> to ensure out "tweaks" are well thought through a(nd) reflect feedback
> we have received. “
> So I think this is all on hold at present – for how long we dont know,
> and if anyone has further information please pass it on (confidentially
> if you wish).
> One of the changes certainly seems to be that they will drop the
> NetMundial Initiative name; at least for now This was mentioned at
> several meetings throughout the week, and apparently they received a lot
> of negative feedback on this.
> What will happen as regards CS reps is unknown – we had their earlier
> agreement to appoint 4 reps, but this may be one of the “tweaks” that
> change. Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.
> CSCG  will not be doing anything without further clarification.
> Ian Peter
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Sep  6 07:00:12 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 13:00:12 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] WEF
In-Reply-To: <B6812540639C47FE8350CA8A65BBAA53@Toshiba>
References: <7D276DF240AB4F4FAE243F33ED538D7F@Toshiba> <540A3D70.9060104@wzb.eu> <B6812540639C47FE8350CA8A65BBAA53@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <5510f246-bceb-44ff-aed5-725e89bae722@email.android.com>

Hi Ian, as a first thought I would suggest for this group to clarify its mandate to prevent the CSCG from overstepping boundaries its members may not even have been aware of. Rules and procedures for this body are a must to generate trust among those who will be depending on its services. 
Jeanette 

On 6 September 2014 11:30:52 CEST, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>This all needs to be clarified, Jeanette...
>
>But the primary difficulty is that civil society currently has no forum
>or
>methodology to come to a decision on any difficult policy issue; and 
>particularly to
>do so within any quick time frame.
>
>Each individual coalition comes to its own decision; or, in the case of
>some groups, can't come to any decision. The
>CSCG, I believe, had to discuss what to do in this context
>after receiving feedback from its member coalitions.
>
>I agree totally CSCG should ideally not be involved in policy, and in
>this
>case time was made for each group to discuss its position and advise.
>But
>where there are strong and divided opinions between groups as to
>whether to
>participate or not, CSCG may have to make some sort of call as to
>whether to
>engage or not, and under what conditions. Unless and until there is
>some 
>sort of
>overall civil society policy making structure devised, I don't see the
>alternative.
>
>And the primary dilemma is this; irrespective of the arguments in this
>particular case, if civil society has no capacity to come to a decision
>within a reasonable time frame as to whether to participate in an
>initiative - when it was asked to be involved - we are not likely to be
>asked to be involved very often.  That I guess was the primary
>frustration
>that led me to make the statement I did earlier on rather than remain
>in a
>more comfortable neutral stance. A decision not to participate is fine;
>a
>decision to participate is fine also; but a lack of capacity to make
>any
>decision or to consider lengthy delays acceptable when we have a firm
>deadline, is the most harmful thing we can do to our attempts to create
>a
>credible united CS process when it comes to nominations.
>
>Fortunately we now have more time, and looking back even the extended 
>timetable we negotiated was too short in the context of IGF and people
>being 
>so busy.
>
>But we still have no methodology to make a decision, so I am not sure
>how 
>more time will help. Most likely WEF will come up again with a
>request for candidates, accompanied hopefully by some clear
>information, and 
>we will start this debate again, once more with limited time to decide.
>
>Can you suggest to me how we then make a policy decision across
>multiple 
>civil
>society groups in a reasonable time frame as to whether to engage or
>not?
>
>
>
>
>
>Ian
>
>
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Jeanette Hofmann
>Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 8:47 AM
>To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>Subject: Re: [bestbits] WEF
>
>Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.
>
>This is indeed a remarkable comment but, probably unlike what Anja
>recommends, I would say that the selection committee really should not
>be in the business of assessing the process or structure for which it
>selects candidates.
>
>jeanette
>
>
>Am 05.09.14 22:54, schrieb Ian Peter:
>> Please note that CSCG received an email yesterday from Alan Marcus of
>> World Economic Forum, in reply to ours requesting clarification on
>> various issues as regards possible appointment of civil society reps
>and
>> asking for more time. Alan had already left IGF.
>> The letter really clarified nothing. But it did say that yes we could
>> have more time (how much not specified). Here is the text
>> “I believe I understand your questions and concerns. And certainly
>with
>> other consultations through out the week I believe I have a much
>better
>> appreciation for where the concerns come from and what the
>opportunities
>> for collaborative impact can be.
>> As should be the case, the feedback points to improvement
>opportunities
>> for which we are prepared to evolve our thinking.
>> For now I can agree to give more time and we will take some time as
>well
>> to ensure out "tweaks" are well thought through a(nd) reflect
>feedback
>> we have received. “
>> So I think this is all on hold at present – for how long we dont
>know,
>> and if anyone has further information please pass it on
>(confidentially
>> if you wish).
>> One of the changes certainly seems to be that they will drop the
>> NetMundial Initiative name; at least for now This was mentioned at
>> several meetings throughout the week, and apparently they received a
>lot
>> of negative feedback on this.
>> What will happen as regards CS reps is unknown – we had their earlier
>> agreement to appoint 4 reps, but this may be one of the “tweaks” that
>> change. Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.
>> CSCG  will not be doing anything without further clarification.
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Sep  6 06:10:34 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 20:10:34 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] WEF
In-Reply-To: <5510f246-bceb-44ff-aed5-725e89bae722@email.android.com>
References: <7D276DF240AB4F4FAE243F33ED538D7F@Toshiba> <540A3D70.9060104@wzb.eu> <B6812540639C47FE8350CA8A65BBAA53@Toshiba> <5510f246-bceb-44ff-aed5-725e89bae722@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <D24659D56FFF41BFAF7899F13AF074EC@Toshiba>

True Jeanette but unless this is accompanied by some sort of separate 
capability for civil society to make policy decisions of this nature in 
reasonable time frames, the primary dilemma remains.

I still ask - Can you suggest how we make a policy decision across multiple 
civil society groups in a reasonable time frame as to whether to engage or 
not? (in this case or any other)

Ian

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 9:00 PM
To: Ian Peter ; Ian Peter ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] WEF

Hi Ian, as a first thought I would suggest for this group to clarify its 
mandate to prevent the CSCG from overstepping boundaries its members may not 
even have been aware of. Rules and procedures for this body are a must to 
generate trust among those who will be depending on its services.
Jeanette

On 6 September 2014 11:30:52 CEST, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>This all needs to be clarified, Jeanette...
>
>But the primary difficulty is that civil society currently has no forum
>or
>methodology to come to a decision on any difficult policy issue; and
>particularly to
>do so within any quick time frame.
>
>Each individual coalition comes to its own decision; or, in the case of
>some groups, can't come to any decision. The
>CSCG, I believe, had to discuss what to do in this context
>after receiving feedback from its member coalitions.
>
>I agree totally CSCG should ideally not be involved in policy, and in
>this
>case time was made for each group to discuss its position and advise.
>But
>where there are strong and divided opinions between groups as to
>whether to
>participate or not, CSCG may have to make some sort of call as to
>whether to
>engage or not, and under what conditions. Unless and until there is
>some
>sort of
>overall civil society policy making structure devised, I don't see the
>alternative.
>
>And the primary dilemma is this; irrespective of the arguments in this
>particular case, if civil society has no capacity to come to a decision
>within a reasonable time frame as to whether to participate in an
>initiative - when it was asked to be involved - we are not likely to be
>asked to be involved very often.  That I guess was the primary
>frustration
>that led me to make the statement I did earlier on rather than remain
>in a
>more comfortable neutral stance. A decision not to participate is fine;
>a
>decision to participate is fine also; but a lack of capacity to make
>any
>decision or to consider lengthy delays acceptable when we have a firm
>deadline, is the most harmful thing we can do to our attempts to create
>a
>credible united CS process when it comes to nominations.
>
>Fortunately we now have more time, and looking back even the extended
>timetable we negotiated was too short in the context of IGF and people
>being
>so busy.
>
>But we still have no methodology to make a decision, so I am not sure
>how
>more time will help. Most likely WEF will come up again with a
>request for candidates, accompanied hopefully by some clear
>information, and
>we will start this debate again, once more with limited time to decide.
>
>Can you suggest to me how we then make a policy decision across
>multiple
>civil
>society groups in a reasonable time frame as to whether to engage or
>not?
>
>
>
>
>
>Ian
>
>
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Jeanette Hofmann
>Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 8:47 AM
>To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>Subject: Re: [bestbits] WEF
>
>Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.
>
>This is indeed a remarkable comment but, probably unlike what Anja
>recommends, I would say that the selection committee really should not
>be in the business of assessing the process or structure for which it
>selects candidates.
>
>jeanette
>
>
>Am 05.09.14 22:54, schrieb Ian Peter:
>> Please note that CSCG received an email yesterday from Alan Marcus of
>> World Economic Forum, in reply to ours requesting clarification on
>> various issues as regards possible appointment of civil society reps
>and
>> asking for more time. Alan had already left IGF.
>> The letter really clarified nothing. But it did say that yes we could
>> have more time (how much not specified). Here is the text
>> “I believe I understand your questions and concerns. And certainly
>with
>> other consultations through out the week I believe I have a much
>better
>> appreciation for where the concerns come from and what the
>opportunities
>> for collaborative impact can be.
>> As should be the case, the feedback points to improvement
>opportunities
>> for which we are prepared to evolve our thinking.
>> For now I can agree to give more time and we will take some time as
>well
>> to ensure out "tweaks" are well thought through a(nd) reflect
>feedback
>> we have received. “
>> So I think this is all on hold at present – for how long we dont
>know,
>> and if anyone has further information please pass it on
>(confidentially
>> if you wish).
>> One of the changes certainly seems to be that they will drop the
>> NetMundial Initiative name; at least for now This was mentioned at
>> several meetings throughout the week, and apparently they received a
>lot
>> of negative feedback on this.
>> What will happen as regards CS reps is unknown – we had their earlier
>> agreement to appoint 4 reps, but this may be one of the “tweaks” that
>> change. Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.
>> CSCG  will not be doing anything without further clarification.
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Sep  6 11:18:18 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 17:18:18 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] WEF
In-Reply-To: <D24659D56FFF41BFAF7899F13AF074EC@Toshiba>
References: <7D276DF240AB4F4FAE243F33ED538D7F@Toshiba> <540A3D70.9060104@wzb.eu> <B6812540639C47FE8350CA8A65BBAA53@Toshiba> <5510f246-bceb-44ff-aed5-725e89bae722@email.android.com> <D24659D56FFF41BFAF7899F13AF074EC@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <540B25BA.8060807@wzb.eu>

Hi Ian,

I thought about this question on my flight back home and my simple 
answer is this: As long as their is an interest in serving and 
representing civil society prinicples in a given body or proccess (1), 
and as long as the CSCG deems at least one candidate suitable for a 
given task (2), I see no reason why the CSCG would not nominate that 
person for it.

I think we should be rather generous with the nominination of civil 
society reps.

First, we may never 100% agree on our valuation of a specific initiative 
such as the WEF process. Second, such initiatives may turn out to be 
more useful than expected. Third, if we keep on nominating good people 
for really useless, embarrassing or boring tasks, the interest in 
serving on such bodies will eventually decline. Thus, the number and 
quality of candidates may be a pretty good indicator for the relevance 
and appropriateness of any initiative.

Should this logic turns out be wrong, we can still think about new 
decision making structures.

jeanette




Am 06.09.14 12:10, schrieb Ian Peter:
> True Jeanette but unless this is accompanied by some sort of separate
> capability for civil society to make policy decisions of this nature in
> reasonable time frames, the primary dilemma remains.
>
> I still ask - Can you suggest how we make a policy decision across
> multiple civil society groups in a reasonable time frame as to whether
> to engage or not? (in this case or any other)
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 9:00 PM
> To: Ian Peter ; Ian Peter ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] WEF
>
> Hi Ian, as a first thought I would suggest for this group to clarify its
> mandate to prevent the CSCG from overstepping boundaries its members may
> not even have been aware of. Rules and procedures for this body are a
> must to generate trust among those who will be depending on its services.
> Jeanette
>
> On 6 September 2014 11:30:52 CEST, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> wrote:
>> This all needs to be clarified, Jeanette...
>>
>> But the primary difficulty is that civil society currently has no forum
>> or
>> methodology to come to a decision on any difficult policy issue; and
>> particularly to
>> do so within any quick time frame.
>>
>> Each individual coalition comes to its own decision; or, in the case of
>> some groups, can't come to any decision. The
>> CSCG, I believe, had to discuss what to do in this context
>> after receiving feedback from its member coalitions.
>>
>> I agree totally CSCG should ideally not be involved in policy, and in
>> this
>> case time was made for each group to discuss its position and advise.
>> But
>> where there are strong and divided opinions between groups as to
>> whether to
>> participate or not, CSCG may have to make some sort of call as to
>> whether to
>> engage or not, and under what conditions. Unless and until there is
>> some
>> sort of
>> overall civil society policy making structure devised, I don't see the
>> alternative.
>>
>> And the primary dilemma is this; irrespective of the arguments in this
>> particular case, if civil society has no capacity to come to a decision
>> within a reasonable time frame as to whether to participate in an
>> initiative - when it was asked to be involved - we are not likely to be
>> asked to be involved very often.  That I guess was the primary
>> frustration
>> that led me to make the statement I did earlier on rather than remain
>> in a
>> more comfortable neutral stance. A decision not to participate is fine;
>> a
>> decision to participate is fine also; but a lack of capacity to make
>> any
>> decision or to consider lengthy delays acceptable when we have a firm
>> deadline, is the most harmful thing we can do to our attempts to create
>> a
>> credible united CS process when it comes to nominations.
>>
>> Fortunately we now have more time, and looking back even the extended
>> timetable we negotiated was too short in the context of IGF and people
>> being
>> so busy.
>>
>> But we still have no methodology to make a decision, so I am not sure
>> how
>> more time will help. Most likely WEF will come up again with a
>> request for candidates, accompanied hopefully by some clear
>> information, and
>> we will start this debate again, once more with limited time to decide.
>>
>> Can you suggest to me how we then make a policy decision across
>> multiple
>> civil
>> society groups in a reasonable time frame as to whether to engage or
>> not?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 8:47 AM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] WEF
>>
>> Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.
>>
>> This is indeed a remarkable comment but, probably unlike what Anja
>> recommends, I would say that the selection committee really should not
>> be in the business of assessing the process or structure for which it
>> selects candidates.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>> Am 05.09.14 22:54, schrieb Ian Peter:
>>> Please note that CSCG received an email yesterday from Alan Marcus of
>>> World Economic Forum, in reply to ours requesting clarification on
>>> various issues as regards possible appointment of civil society reps
>> and
>>> asking for more time. Alan had already left IGF.
>>> The letter really clarified nothing. But it did say that yes we could
>>> have more time (how much not specified). Here is the text
>>> “I believe I understand your questions and concerns. And certainly
>> with
>>> other consultations through out the week I believe I have a much
>> better
>>> appreciation for where the concerns come from and what the
>> opportunities
>>> for collaborative impact can be.
>>> As should be the case, the feedback points to improvement
>> opportunities
>>> for which we are prepared to evolve our thinking.
>>> For now I can agree to give more time and we will take some time as
>> well
>>> to ensure out "tweaks" are well thought through a(nd) reflect
>> feedback
>>> we have received. “
>>> So I think this is all on hold at present – for how long we dont
>> know,
>>> and if anyone has further information please pass it on
>> (confidentially
>>> if you wish).
>>> One of the changes certainly seems to be that they will drop the
>>> NetMundial Initiative name; at least for now This was mentioned at
>>> several meetings throughout the week, and apparently they received a
>> lot
>>> of negative feedback on this.
>>> What will happen as regards CS reps is unknown – we had their earlier
>>> agreement to appoint 4 reps, but this may be one of the “tweaks” that
>>> change. Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.
>>> CSCG  will not be doing anything without further clarification.
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Sat Sep  6 07:07:49 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 14:07:49 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHC+wzGxtSHyX1Mgek5X4auJpfryApScDc=srA9BWMhAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba> <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org> <54081751.7060907@cdt.org> <540838C2.1000808@wzb.eu> <20140904224337.62e23d4a@swan.bollow.ch> <CAJqNAHC+wzGxtSHyX1Mgek5X4auJpfryApScDc=srA9BWMhAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52890741-6220-4F8F-9025-23D15F51A148@eff.org>

On Sep 5, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
> Glad to see the clarification on the role if the committee here. I think ideally, the committee should not have attended the meeting, but should have passed on the invitation to the CS people who participated in the earlier meeting, who could have then passed on the relevant details to all of us, and we could have deliberated on the whether question following that. The CSCG was put into place simply to make nominations for processes we have already agreed that we want to get involved in, and unless otherwise agreed by the wider networks involved in it, should stick to that role in my opinion. 
> 

I agree on keeping CSCG to its limited role.  However the meeting in Istanbul from which I reported back was not the sort of meeting that could usefully have been left to the CS people who participated in the Geneva meeting, because it was called to answer specific questions that the CSCG had been asked by its constituents about how its very role might be exercised in this case (eg. how many nominees there would be, what deadline the WEF would set, etc).  Although in Geneva, and by subsequent phone call to Ian, the WEF had agreed in principle to a CSCG nomination process, it had not descended into that level of detail.  The meeting wasn't in substitution for or exclusion of other meetings that the CS people who participated in the earlier meeting could also have had (and indeed some of them have had) with WEF and Fadi.

> On the actual question of whether we should put forward representatives collectively: I think we should not, as this gives a multistakeholder veneer to a process that isn't (and when I say 'multistakeholder', I think of a process that very clearly adheres to the IG principles outlined in the NETmundial outcome document). It also means that we give legitimacy to the WEF as a venue to unite us all, which I don't want to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean, though, that I think civil society shouldn't be part of this. I would be happy for organisations already involved in this, if they are ready, to continue their work, including of informing us all, which I think they have done well and which I have greatly appreciated.
> 


This is one of those cases in which not making a decision about civil society participation is making a decision about civil society participation - it's effectively deciding that representatives from Human Rights Watch, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and Access - all North-based - were appropriately chosen by the WEF to take part in this initiative.  So if that's acceptable, all well and good - obviously I have no personal interest in disagreeing, given that I'm one of those privileged few.  But just flagging (am I channeling Parminder for a change?) that not taking a decision on this is taking a decision on it.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140906/70397bcf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140906/70397bcf/attachment.sig>

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Sat Sep  6 22:40:49 2014
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 20:40:49 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <52890741-6220-4F8F-9025-23D15F51A148@eff.org>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba>
 <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca> <D6CF2F55-FF23-427C-BC79-F39FC694C7BA@eff.org>
 <54081751.7060907@cdt.org> <540838C2.1000808@wzb.eu> <20140904224337.62e23d4a@swan.bollow.ch>
 <CAJqNAHC+wzGxtSHyX1Mgek5X4auJpfryApScDc=srA9BWMhAoQ@mail.gmail.com> <52890741-6220-4F8F-9025-23D15F51A148@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxMetCTmETYcdsUfFuN9rdUmvTekq8CYbraNCOSDfiKtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>
> Glad to see the clarification on the role if the committee here. I think
> ideally, the committee should not have attended the meeting, but should have
> passed on the invitation to the CS people who participated in the earlier
> meeting, who could have then passed on the relevant details to all of us,
> and we could have deliberated on the whether question following that. The
> CSCG was put into place simply to make nominations for processes we have
> already agreed that we want to get involved in, and unless otherwise agreed
> by the wider networks involved in it, should stick to that role in my
> opinion.
>
>
> I agree on keeping CSCG to its limited role.  However the meeting in
> Istanbul from which I reported back was not the sort of meeting that could
> usefully have been left to the CS people who participated in the Geneva
> meeting, because it was called to answer specific questions that the CSCG
> had been asked by its constituents about how its very role might be
> exercised in this case (eg. how many nominees there would be, what deadline
> the WEF would set, etc).  Although in Geneva, and by subsequent phone call
> to Ian, the WEF had agreed in principle to a CSCG nomination process, it had
> not descended into that level of detail.  The meeting wasn't in substitution
> for or exclusion of other meetings that the CS people who participated in
> the earlier meeting could also have had (and indeed some of them have had)
> with WEF and Fadi.
>
> On the actual question of whether we should put forward representatives
> collectively: I think we should not, as this gives a multistakeholder veneer
> to a process that isn't (and when I say 'multistakeholder', I think of a
> process that very clearly adheres to the IG principles outlined in the
> NETmundial outcome document). It also means that we give legitimacy to the
> WEF as a venue to unite us all, which I don't want to do.
>
> That doesn't mean, though, that I think civil society shouldn't be part of
> this. I would be happy for organisations already involved in this, if they
> are ready, to continue their work, including of informing us all, which I
> think they have done well and which I have greatly appreciated.
>
>
> This is one of those cases in which not making a decision about civil
> society participation is making a decision about civil society participation
> - it's effectively deciding that representatives from Human Rights Watch,
> Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and Access - all
> North-based - were appropriately chosen by the WEF to take part in this
> initiative.

Not really. It doesn't actually mean that. Both sets of people (and
apparently most looking on) simply hold that the WEF thing is
"extraneous." They really didn't want to be that, but they've been
pegged as such. All that you were really doing is letting us all know
what they were up to.  Keep in mind, the whole WSIS process is about
engaging stakeholders in a process that projects validation in the
form of participation.  This isn't the usual thing where bigwigs
operate internationally and get their way because of corporate status
and executive branch independence in the international arena.  It's an
attempt to construct pieces of an international structure that will
have a greater "legitimacy" through "multistakeholderism." They sought
to extend Netmundial to add a few things to that validation process,
and you kept them (all parties) from doing that.  This happens to be
an instance where staking your ground on these principles does the
whole thing you needed. It's done.

The real question is only when they will try again, and how.  Right
now, whatever they do is outside the process constructed to create
legitimacy.  It's standard international machinations, not really this
"multistakeholder" concoction.  So just watch what they're up to and
be glad they didn't get to go ahead, precisely because you all piped
up.  That's it.

But it doesn't mean WEF was "legitimate" in selecting those they did
-- WEF is just not "legitimate" in relation to the overall WSIS
"multistakeholder" concoction. Even if it's Fadi and ICANN. He didn't
accomplish it.  Period.

They're still bigwigs doing that creepy international stuff. You just
averted it gaining the extra "grounding" they sought.

:-)

> So if that's acceptable, all well and good - obviously I have
> no personal interest in disagreeing, given that I'm one of those privileged
> few.  But just flagging (am I channeling Parminder for a change?) that not
> taking a decision on this is taking a decision on it.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From anriette at apc.org  Sun Sep  7 08:45:59 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 14:45:59 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Blazer/jacket left on boat in Istanbul
In-Reply-To: <540C11AD.8030408@apc.org>
References: <540C11AD.8030408@apc.org>
Message-ID: <540C5387.5000805@apc.org>

Dear all

Someone who attended the APC boat party in Istanbul left a grey/charcoal
BCBG jacket/blazer on the boat.  It has an IGF pin on it.

Let me or alexandra at apc.org know if it is yours and we will try to get
it to you.

Best

Anriette



From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 09:58:21 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 13:58:21 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] MAG Renewal now announced. Nominations till October 20.
Message-ID: <CADFgh10Wes5+-ndCfexZxemj_Br4SWzcKifHuYtopKdouEzQvA@mail.gmail.com>

From: Chengetai Masango
Date: Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:20 PM
Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG renewal
To: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>


Dear All,



I hope you all had a good trip back home.



The MAG renewal announcement is up on the IGF Website:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/175-igf-2015/2039-mag-renewal-announcement



The nomination deadline is *20 October 2014 *(no extension of the deadline
envisioned).





Best regards,



Chengetai
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140909/a87d51b1/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Sep  1 05:00:42 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:00:42 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <5404308C.5030302@apc.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com> <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org> <5404308C.5030302@apc.org>
Message-ID: <2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org>

On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:38 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

> Hi - I agree with the idea of a joint statement making the IGF permanent
> However, I would point out that yesterday at the Best Bits meeting we agreed to make a statement saying more than just that the IGF should be made permanent - we also were to preparea a statement on other issues and a smaller group had started notes on these during the meeting on the meeting etherpad https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y at lines 330-339 
> These still need more work -  a small group volunteered to work on developing these into a statement that would be sent to this list for comment and a call for support (myself, Dixie, Jeremy, Carolina - maybe one or two others?)

Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the permanent mandate of the IGF, but I'm not sure whether people realised they would be supporting a broader statement covering other points (such as "concern at the number of new processes", which seems contentious to me, although I personally agree with it).  Can we have two separate outputs?  ie. I think there would be value in issuing a consensus statement on the renewal of the IGF, and putting the other paragraphs into an optional sign-on statement if they are more contentious and might detract from the unanimity of the message about extension of the IGF.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/8567ff9d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/8567ff9d/attachment.sig>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 17:36:03 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 17:36:03 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] BB pre-IGF MTG FOLLOW-UP AND REPORT
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfB3LjMtBEuP8ukE6LiKTtG3yt144vGWrYdLxaoLhEbFQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear BB community and colleagues,

Firstly, the Steering Committee and co-organizers would like to thank you
for attending the Best Bits pre-IGF meeting in Istanbul last week. Over 85
of you attended, and your active participation and engagement was a great
step forward for BB.

As a follow up, here is the meeting report:
https://docs.google.com/a/publicknowledge.org/document/d/18sFwkzlxiRKryWhIhVC8c5aYr-OL2d02rdpH6cRLS-w/edit.
It is locked for edits in order to ensure that there is a consistent
version on the BB site, but please feel free to add comments where you see
fit.

Secondly, one of the major outcomes of the meeting was the creation of
three working groups. Some general updates for each of the groups are below:

   - *IGF renewal working group: *A BB statement on the IGF (which included
   support of IGF renewal) is already out:
   http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/. Please feel free to endorse it
   as an individual or organization. Further, some BB members and others
   worked on this statement on IGF continuation: http://igfcontinuation.org/.
   This can also be signed as a organization or individual. Both statements
   were delivered at the closing ceremony of the IGF and are also finding
   their ways through the IGF renewal process.


   - *ITU working group:* A group of volunteers (see the list in the BB
   report) has been formed. If you'd like to join, please contact Anne Jellema
   <anne at webfoundation.org> and myself.


   - *WSIS+10 working group: *A group of volunteers (see the list in the BB
   report) has been formed. If you'd like to join, please contact  Deborah
   Brown <deborah at apc.org> or Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>.

If you have not seen, please check the briefings we - at PK - prepared on
those topics. See under section "links" at
http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014/.

Regarding meeting costs. The total cost of the meeting was U$ 2610
(30US$/person). We are very glad that folks at the meeting chipped in
the equivalent of US$654. APC has provided U$1000 and GPD is covering the
difference. So, I thank you all again for your contributions.

For those who I "BCC" and were present at the meeting, if you still want to
join the main Best Bits mailing list, please *send an email to
**sympa at lists.bestbits.net
<sympa at lists.bestbits.net>* (any questions, follow the instructions at
http://lists.bestbits.net/help/user#subscribe or email Jeremy at Jeremy
Malcolm <jeremy at malcolm.id.au> (He is one of the lists admins).

Finally, *in the upcoming days you all will receive a follow-up survey on
the meeting.* I hope you take 5 minutes to answer that, so we can - as a
community - keep improving the way we interact, communicate and build
collaborative strategy.

Thanks again for all of you who participated, and we look forward to seeing
you at the next meeting.


Best Regards,





-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140909/d3e538b2/attachment.htm>

From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Sep 12 10:36:52 2014
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:36:52 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] DiploFoundation Cybersecurity course application
 deadline approaches
Message-ID: <CALCecM-sGQ1GAXV4VOL3-Qt8=jhuMfpnWcywY1szOUrFMdXDog@mail.gmail.com>

(Apologies for cross-posting, but I think some of you may be interested) gp

Colleagues,

The call for applications for DiploFoundation's advanced thematic course in
Cybersecurity closes in a few days. The course starts in October.

More details about this course is available below or at
http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-security. Please share this
announcement with friends or colleagues who may be interested to apply.
Thanks!

Ginger


Cybersecurity

*Course details:*

Today’s headlines often feature the word ‘cyber’, reporting on threats
related to the virtual world: online child abuse, stolen credit cards and
virtual identities, malware and viruses, botnets and denial-of-service
attacks on corporate or government servers, cyber-espionage, and
cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure including nuclear facilities and
power supply networks.

What are the real cybersecurity challenges? What is the role of diplomacy,
international legal instruments, and regional and national policies in
addresses these threats, and how efficient are they? How does international
cooperation in cybersecurity work, and what are the roles of the various
stakeholders?

The 10-week advanced thematic course in Cybersecurity covers policy
challenges, actors, and initiatives related to cybersecurity, and
specifically to cybercrime, security of the core infrastructure,
cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism, and Internet safety.

By the end of the course, participants should be able to:

   - Identify the defining features of cybersecurity, and the factors which
   shape the international issues.
   - Identify principal threats to cybersecurity; describe and analyse the
   key cybersecurity issues for users, and states.
   - Understand and analyse the Internet security issues for e-commerce
   including online banking and identity.
   - Explain the issues involved in cybercrime, its impact and
   investigation.
   - Understand the threats to the core Internet infrastructure.
   - Explain the concepts of cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism, and their
   role in international Internet policy.
   - Understand and assess the challenges involved in social aspects of
   cybersecurity.
   - Explain and analyse the international frameworks for cybersecurity
   policies and strategies.

The course forms part of the Thematic Phase of Diplo’s Internet Governance
Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP>.
This phase offers in-depth courses that provide deeper understanding of a
particular issue. Other courses forming part of this phase - which may run
simultaneously or at a later date - include ICT Policy and Strategic
Planning <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-ICTstrategy>,
 E-participation <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-eparticipation>
, History of Internet Governance
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-history>, Infrastructure and
Critical Internet Resources
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-Infrastructure>, Intellectual
Property Rights <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-IPR>, and Privacy
and Personal Data Protection
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-Privacy>.
Excerpt from course materials

*‘...One side-effect of the rapid integration of the Internet in almost all
aspects of human activity is the increased vulnerability of modern society.
The Internet is part of the global critical infrastructure. Other core
services of modern society, such as electric grids, transport systems, and
health services are increasingly dependent on the Internet. As attacks on
these systems may cause severe disruption and have huge financial
consequences, they are frequent targets.’ *(Lexture text 4.3)
Course outline

The thematic course in Cybersecurity includes one week of hypertext
practice and platform familiarisation and introduction, and eight in-depth
course texts:

*Chapter 1. Introduction to security* discusses the historical development
of cybersecurity, and distinguishes between the common, narrow,
understanding of cybersecurity related to cyber-threats, and broader views
which include information security and ‘friendly’ cyber conquest through
technological standardisation dominance.

*Chapter 2. Cybersecurity threats and building trust* reviews common
security threats to individuals, such as malware (including spyware,
Trojans, viruses), phishing, e-scams and identity theft. To better
understand the security-enabling infrastructure, the chapter explains the
basics of the authentication and Public Key Infrastructure, including PIN
codes and other identifiers, randomly generated passwords and e-signatures,
and touches upon the challenge of identity and anonymity online. It
concludes by looking at ways to build trust in e-commerce and e-services.

*Chapter 3. Cybercrime* attempts to define and classify cybercrime while
reviewing the history of spam, viruses, intrusion, worms, Trojan horses,
denial-of-service attacks and cyber-stalking, and also analyses its
economic and social impacts. The chapter then focuses on combatting
cybercrime: existing legal frameworks at the global and regional levels,
jurisdiction challenges and various law enforcement approaches, computer
investigation and e-forensics.

*Chapter 4. Security of the core Internet infrastructure* explains briefly
how the critical components of the Internet work, and discusses the
political dimension of global security - the (unilateral) control over the
DNS - and technical vulnerabilities such as domain name hijacking, packet
interception, DNS poisoning, and DNS spoofing. The chapter also explains
the recent technological security upgrade titled DNSSec, and related
technical and policy challenges. It then looks at the expected challenges
of future networks: Internet of Things/Next Generation Networks and ‘smart
networks’.

*Chapter 5. Cyberterrorism and cyberwarfare *looks at the security and
protection of the critical infrastructure - the Internet infrastructure and
also water supply facilities, transport, industrial facilities and power
plants. It discusses cyberterrorism and possible counteracts, and analyses
Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. It also discusses cyberwarfare, reviews
the attempts to codify international law with regards to cyberwar, and
refers to existing international initiatives and norms and their possible
application in cyberspace (i.e. the Geneva Conventions).

*Chapter 6. Social aspects of cybersecurity*: correlating privacy with
security is our first task in this module, with special reflection on
social media challenges. We attempt to define online safety, and scan
through the challenges of the Web 2.0 era where users are the contributors
and the Internet is ubiquitous. We then look at child safety, including
cyber-bullying, abuse and sexual exploitation, and violent games, and
discuss the ways to address these challenges through policy, education and
technology.

*Chapter 7. Internet safety*: touching upon openness and online freedoms,
we look at some of the main issues faced when dealing with Internet safety,
including objectionable and harmful content. We then analyse the
reliability of information, and look at ethics, health and gender issues.

*Chapter 8. Internet security policies and strategies:* we dive deeply into
the existing legal and policy frameworks. We start with the international
framework, including the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, the
ITU Global Security Agenda, the Commonwealth Cybercrime Initiative and the
OSCE. We also look at regional policies and strategies including European
Union, African Union and the Organisation of American States. We review
business initiatives in the field of cybersecurity, including initiatives
by Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, and SAFEcode, and discuss the importance and
risks of public-private partnerships.
Reviews

‘The course is updated with the latest security issues, so we have a global
view of what is going on now, and what organisations are involved at
international level in the fight against cybercriminality.’

‘... [the course lecturer] has been very encouraging to think on even the
different side which may not be very popular side. So both pros and cons of
the issues come to light in the class, encouraging deeper learning.’

*Who should apply:*

Diplo seeks applications from the following, from both developed and
developing countries:

   - Officials in government ministries, departments, judicial or
   regulatory institutions dealing with security and/or ICT-related policy
   issues (e.g. security and defence, foreign affairs, justice,
   telecommunications);
   - Experts and officials in intergovernmental, international and regional
   organisations in charge of security cooperation, justice and home affairs,
   defence or Internet and ICT policy;
   - Academics, researchers and postgraduate students in the field of
   security and/or Internet;
   - Professionals from the corporate sector in charge of Internet and
   security policies;
   - Journalists and staff of non-governmental organisations, covering
   issues of Internet rights and security.

This course may also be of interest to:

   - Practising diplomats, civil servants, and others working in
   international relations who want to refresh or expand their knowledge on
   the subject, under the guidance of experienced practitioners and academics.
   - Postgraduate students of diplomacy or international relations wishing
   to study topics not offered through their university programmes or
   diplomatic academies and to gain deeper insight through interaction with
   practising diplomats.

*Methodology:*

This course is conducted online over a period of ten weeks, including one
week of classroom orientation, eight weeks of dynamic class content and
activities, and one week for the final assignment. Reading materials and
tools for online interaction are provided through an online classroom. Each
week, participants read the provided lecture texts, adding comments,
references, and questions in the form of hypertext entries. The tutor and
other participants read and respond to these entries, creating interaction
based on the lecture text. During the week, participants complete
additional online activities (e.g. further discussion via blogs or forums
or quizzes). At the end of the week, participants and tutors meet online in
a chat room to discuss the week’s topic.

Courses are based on a collaborative approach to learning, involving a high
level of interaction. This course requires a minimum of 7-8 hours of study
time per week.

Participants are invited to join Diplo’s global Internet governance online
community of over 1,400 members, and to attend monthly webinars and other
IG-related events and activities.

The course materials, the e-learning platform, and the working language of
the course is English. Applicants should consider whether their reading and
writing skills in English are sufficient to follow postgraduate level
materials and discussion.

*Prerequistes:*

Applicants for the certificate course must have:

   - Either completed the course Introduction to Internet Governance, or
   have equivalent knowledge of Internet governance issues, or experience in
   the field, or experience of the multistakeholder approach in international
   affairs;
   - Sufficient ability in the English language to undertake postgraduate
   level studies (including reading academic texts, discussing complex
   concepts with other course participants, and submitting written essay
   assignments);
   - Regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient,
   although broadband is preferable);
   - A minimum of 7-8 hours commitment per week, and the readiness to
   participate in class online sessions (once a week at specified times).

*Fees:*

Course fees:

   - €650 (Diplo Certificate Course)

Applicants must pay full fees upon official acceptance into the course. The
fee includes:

   - Full tuition
   - Course orientation pack where applicable (optional readings)
   - Access to all course materials online, via Diplo’s online classroom
   - Personal interaction via the online classroom with course lecturers,
   staff and other participants
   - Online technical support
   - For Diplo Certificate Courses, postgraduate-level certificate issued
   by DiploFoundation on successful completion of course requirements
   (interaction and participation, all assignments)

Financial assistance

A limited number of partial scholarships (maximum 20%) will be offered to
participants from developing and emerging countries. Participants who would
like to apply for financial assistance must upload the following documents
with their application:

   - a CV or resumé;
   - a motivation letter outlining relevant professional and educational
   background, and interest in the course.

As Diplo's ability to offer scholarship support is limited, candidates are
strongly encouraged to seek scholarship funding directly from local or
international institutions. Our guide to *Finding Scholarships for Online
Study <http://www.diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=725> *may provide you
with some useful starting points.

*How to apply:*
Applicants for certificate courses should apply online.
<http://learn.diplomacy.edu/registration/register.php>

Late applications will be considered if there are spaces available in the
course. Please e-mail ig at diplomacy.edu to request a deadline extension.

*Learn more* about certificate and accredited courses
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/learning/programmes>, and about learning
with Diplo <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/learning>.
------------------------------
Cancellation Policy

Diplo reserves the right to cancel this course if enrolment is
insufficient. In case of cancellation, Diplo will notify applicants shortly
after the application deadline. Applicants who have paid an application fee
may apply this fee towards another course or receive a refund.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140912/71c2ca6c/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Fri Sep 12 14:56:28 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (jmalcolm)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:56:28 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society MAG Appointments - Call for comments
Message-ID: <16b751fbe9b9e4049d2b9b56f5420a2f@eff.org>

Folks, this is a lengthy message requesting your feedback as regards 
Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 
nominations and the role that the Internet Governance Civil Society Co 
ordination Group (CSCG) might play.

The history that led to this has been that, in the past various, civil 
society groups have nominated separately, with the result being that the 
Secretariat made its own decisions, including in some cases people with 
no active involvement with the civil society groups. Last year for the 
first time we were able to achieve a degree of cross-endorsements 
between our groups, but this was still confusing to the IGF Secretariat. 
To remedy this, we are looking this year for the first time to have a 
more comprehensive civil-society endorsement process for candidates.

In this respect, we expect to issue a call for candidates next Thursday 
(September 18). In the meantime, as we finalise this approach, your 
comments are sought on the following.

TIMETABLE

The draft timetable is as follows. Bear in mind that each coalition 
member will be calling for its own nominations which will be collated 
with others at a later stage

     Thurs, Sep 18 - release call for nominations and final selection 
criteria
     Tues, September 30 - close of nominations
     October 1-3 - collation of nominations and shortlisting from 
various coalitions
     October 4- 14 - completion of selections and publication of names 
to lists
     October 16 - forwarding names to IGF Secretariat.

Your comments on this are welcome.

PROCEDURES

The draft procedures follow. These are still being refined within CSCG, 
but your input is welcome.

The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and 
conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside 
bodies.

The following is the procedure which CSCG follows when a request for 
civil society appointments is received.

1.  CSCG may be involved in nominations when requested to do so by 
either one of its members or by an outside organisation requesting CS 
involvement. When such a request is received, CSCG will clarify what has 
been requested and, in a case where CS already has representation, 
consult with existing representatives in clarifying the involvement 
required.

2.  CSCG will not be involved in any appointments of CS representatives 
if more than 35% of its coalition members determine not to be involved 
in the process, or where the number with a clear determination to be 
involved does not exceed those expressing a wish not to be involved. 
(Others may have a neutral or undecided stance) Where coalition members 
choose not to be involved and a decision to proceed is made, their 
decision to do so will be announced (if they so wish) as part of any 
announcement of chosen representatives. The decision to be involved or 
not is the primary responsibility of each constituency.

3.  Any CSCG member who wishes to be eligible for selection as part of 
any process must announce that intention before a call for candidates is 
announced, and may nominate another representative of their coalition to 
take their place on the Nomcom.

4.  CSCG as a whole will determine selection criteria for any 
appointments and announce them as part of a call for candidates.

5.  CSCG will determine and manage a timetable for the process.

6.  A separate CSCG mailing list will be established for each 
nomination process.

7.  Unless otherwise determined by CSCG members, each coalition will 
issue its own call for candidates, and forward appropriate names to CSCG 
at the nominated close of nominations. Coalitions are at liberty to 
shortlist their own candidates and only submit appropriate names, or to 
forward all names received

8.  Where time permits and as appropriate, candidates may be asked to 
address selection criteria in their nominations.

9.  The CSCG Nomcom will consist of all voting members and the non 
voting chair, with the exception of representatives of coalitions who 
choose not to participate in a particular process.

10.  The Nomcom in making its decisions should determine appropriate 
procedures to arrive at a final decision. But unless circumstances 
suggest otherwise, it is suggested that selection should begin with a 
shortlisting process, which will assist in identifying most favoured 
candidates and which candidates should be examined more closely. 
Following from shortlisting, which is a guide only and not an indication 
of which candidates should be selected, Â Nomcom members will arrive at 
the final candidates list, using on line exchanges and if necessary 
conference linkups to determine the final slates.

11.  All members of the Nomcom are required to consider the interests 
of civil society as a whole, and not just their own coalition, in 
determining appropriate representatives

12.  All Nomcoms will take into account geographic and gender balance 
in determining their final selections, while considering also the need 
for the breadth of viewpoints/worldviews represented within civil 
society to be represented. Â While realising that complete balance will 
not be able to be achieved in every individual instance. CSCG members 
are requested to take into account any such deficits in balances in 
previous CSCG decisions in making selections, with an objective of 
achieving balance over a period of time which may not be achievable in 
every particular case.

13.  The records of each Nomcom will be destroyed six months after the 
process is completed.



SELECTION CRITERIA

The following are suggested selection criteria for MAG for your 
comments (see also comments above re achieving balance across the slate 
of candidates)



1.  Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups 
working on internet governance issues

2.  Consultative style

3.  Previous attendee at IGF

4.  Able to work constructively with other stakeholder groups



A period for comments and suggestions is now open. A call for 
candidates will be issued on Thursday, September 18.

Ian Peter

(Independent Chair, CSCG)



CSCG members are:

Association for Progressive Communications,  represented by Chat Garcia 
Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director

Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member

Civicus, represented by Mandeep Tiwana, Head of Policy and Research

Diplo Foundation,  represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque,  Internet 
Governance Programmes

Just Net Coalition, represented by Norbert Bollow, Co-convenor

Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, 
Co-Coordinator

The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin 
Gross, NCSG Executive Committee


From wjdrake at gmail.com  Sat Sep 13 06:13:09 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:13:09 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society MAG Appointments - Call for comments
In-Reply-To: <16b751fbe9b9e4049d2b9b56f5420a2f@eff.org>
References: <16b751fbe9b9e4049d2b9b56f5420a2f@eff.org>
Message-ID: <6BD1FD11-C95B-44CB-A253-79FDA6EF1C33@gmail.com>

Hi

Sorry for cross-posting but I’m copying IGC as if memory serves my nomination was endorsed there.

FWIW, I have now served for three years on the MAG and want to rotate off in the next cycle. There are other CS people who’ve worked hard on pushing boulders up hill who will also be departing, but I leave it to them to state this.

Civil society desperately needs to have serious and strategically oriented representatives who are committed to advancing CS’s objectives in an environment where NETmundial has endorsed the IGF strengthening we’d long advocated but conservative proponents of a staid status quo are quite good at process bending.  CS participants need to work together, and to actively coordinate with MAG members from other stakeholder groups that may be in agreement on particular issues.  Despite the efforts of a few, this frequently has not been achieved in recent years. So I really hope some dedicated people will be nominated.

To the selection criteria below you might want to add having a clear understanding of a) civil society concerns and objectives, and b) the strategic objectives and behavior of other stakeholders represented on the MAG, and an ability to respond to these quickly and effectively as needed.

If there’s a joint CSCG submission, you might want to note that the coalitions that have worked on IG for years and contributed heavily to building the IGF remain concerned about their frequent inability to get the qualified people they nominate onto the MAG, with the result that CS has often been ineffectively represented.  This has had significant consequences for not only CS but by extension the IGF itself.  These concerns are even sharper now in light of the NETmundial mandate, so insist that people selected be involved in CS work and networks and be seriously committed to engagement, and that the names you’re forwarding meet these criteria.  See what happens when this goes into the black box at DESA.

Best,

Bill

On Sep 12, 2014, at 8:56 PM, jmalcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> Folks, this is a lengthy message requesting your feedback as regards Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) nominations and the role that the Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) might play.
> 
> The history that led to this has been that, in the past various, civil society groups have nominated separately, with the result being that the Secretariat made its own decisions, including in some cases people with no active involvement with the civil society groups. Last year for the first time we were able to achieve a degree of cross-endorsements between our groups, but this was still confusing to the IGF Secretariat. To remedy this, we are looking this year for the first time to have a more comprehensive civil-society endorsement process for candidates.
> 
> In this respect, we expect to issue a call for candidates next Thursday (September 18). In the meantime, as we finalise this approach, your comments are sought on the following.
> 
> TIMETABLE
> 
> The draft timetable is as follows. Bear in mind that each coalition member will be calling for its own nominations which will be collated with others at a later stage
> 
>    Thurs, Sep 18 - release call for nominations and final selection criteria
>    Tues, September 30 - close of nominations
>    October 1-3 - collation of nominations and shortlisting from various coalitions
>    October 4- 14 - completion of selections and publication of names to lists
>    October 16 - forwarding names to IGF Secretariat.
> 
> Your comments on this are welcome.
> 
> PROCEDURES
> 
> The draft procedures follow. These are still being refined within CSCG, but your input is welcome.
> 
> The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies.
> 
> The following is the procedure which CSCG follows when a request for civil society appointments is received.
> 
> 1.  CSCG may be involved in nominations when requested to do so by either one of its members or by an outside organisation requesting CS involvement. When such a request is received, CSCG will clarify what has been requested and, in a case where CS already has representation, consult with existing representatives in clarifying the involvement required.
> 
> 2.  CSCG will not be involved in any appointments of CS representatives if more than 35% of its coalition members determine not to be involved in the process, or where the number with a clear determination to be involved does not exceed those expressing a wish not to be involved. (Others may have a neutral or undecided stance) Where coalition members choose not to be involved and a decision to proceed is made, their decision to do so will be announced (if they so wish) as part of any announcement of chosen representatives. The decision to be involved or not is the primary responsibility of each constituency.
> 
> 3.  Any CSCG member who wishes to be eligible for selection as part of any process must announce that intention before a call for candidates is announced, and may nominate another representative of their coalition to take their place on the Nomcom.
> 
> 4.  CSCG as a whole will determine selection criteria for any appointments and announce them as part of a call for candidates.
> 
> 5.  CSCG will determine and manage a timetable for the process.
> 
> 6.  A separate CSCG mailing list will be established for each nomination process.
> 
> 7.  Unless otherwise determined by CSCG members, each coalition will issue its own call for candidates, and forward appropriate names to CSCG at the nominated close of nominations. Coalitions are at liberty to shortlist their own candidates and only submit appropriate names, or to forward all names received
> 
> 8.  Where time permits and as appropriate, candidates may be asked to address selection criteria in their nominations.
> 
> 9.  The CSCG Nomcom will consist of all voting members and the non voting chair, with the exception of representatives of coalitions who choose not to participate in a particular process.
> 
> 10.  The Nomcom in making its decisions should determine appropriate procedures to arrive at a final decision. But unless circumstances suggest otherwise, it is suggested that selection should begin with a shortlisting process, which will assist in identifying most favoured candidates and which candidates should be examined more closely. Following from shortlisting, which is a guide only and not an indication of which candidates should be selected, Â Nomcom members will arrive at the final candidates list, using on line exchanges and if necessary conference linkups to determine the final slates.
> 
> 11.  All members of the Nomcom are required to consider the interests of civil society as a whole, and not just their own coalition, in determining appropriate representatives
> 
> 12.  All Nomcoms will take into account geographic and gender balance in determining their final selections, while considering also the need for the breadth of viewpoints/worldviews represented within civil society to be represented. Â While realising that complete balance will not be able to be achieved in every individual instance. CSCG members are requested to take into account any such deficits in balances in previous CSCG decisions in making selections, with an objective of achieving balance over a period of time which may not be achievable in every particular case.
> 
> 13.  The records of each Nomcom will be destroyed six months after the process is completed.
> 
> 
> 
> SELECTION CRITERIA
> 
> The following are suggested selection criteria for MAG for your comments (see also comments above re achieving balance across the slate of candidates)
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues
> 
> 2.  Consultative style
> 
> 3.  Previous attendee at IGF
> 
> 4.  Able to work constructively with other stakeholder groups
> 
> 
> 
> A period for comments and suggestions is now open. A call for candidates will be issued on Thursday, September 18.
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> (Independent Chair, CSCG)
> 
> 
> 
> CSCG members are:
> 
> Association for Progressive Communications,  represented by Chat Garcia Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director
> 
> Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member
> 
> Civicus, represented by Mandeep Tiwana, Head of Policy and Research
> 
> Diplo Foundation,  represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque,  Internet Governance Programmes
> 
> Just Net Coalition, represented by Norbert Bollow, Co-convenor
> 
> Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator
> 
> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, NCSG Executive Committee
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************


From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Sep 15 16:04:10 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:04:10 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_NOW=3A_After_Istanbul_=E2=80=93_An_I?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?nternet_Governance_Forum_2014_Debrief?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3=JCk00dREBs94dqtXo28Fkzkc2n=i80ZDWZ5U4XXYeg@mail.gmail.com>

Just starting. So many hours of meetings, all of them high quality
discussions. It will be interesting to see what stands out to those who
were there.

 joly posted: "Today, Monday 15 September 2014 at 4pm EDT the Greater
Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC DC) will present a
discussion 'After Istanbul – An Internet Governance Forum 2014 Debrief'.
From September 2 - 5. More than 3,000 delegates attended"

[image: IGF debrief]
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf2014debrief>Today, *Monday
15 September 2014* at *4pm EDT* the *Greater Washington DC Chapter of the
Internet Society* <http://www.isoc-dc.org/> (ISOC DC) will present a
discussion *‘After Istanbul – An Internet Governance Forum 2014 Debrief
<http://www.isoc-dc.org/2014/09/isoc-dc-event-after-istanbul-an-internet-governance-forum-2014-debrief/>‘*.

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 02:43:31 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:43:31 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3
 December 2014
Message-ID: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com>

Hi

The IGF secretariat has announced that we will be Open Consultations and MAG meetings at the International Telecom Union (!) in Geneva on 1-3 December 2014.  This could be an important meeting from the standpoint of advancing civil society objectives for the IGF, in particular laying a foundation for follow up to the NETmundial mandate to strengthen the IGF.  If the meetings turn into another one of those occassions where we just sit around talking about “what worked and what did not” in Istanbul (e.g. complaining about the wifi, the number of panelists on main sessions, how many workshops, etc.) it will be a missed opportunity to put us on a good path to the November 2015 meeting in Brazil.  Hopefully the new MAG members will have been announced in advance and will be able to attend.

Hotels could be expensive at that time of year so anyone thinking of coming might want to start looking into options now.  There should be some bits of financial support for MAG members from Least Developed Countries (LDC’s), Developing Countries, and Transitional Economies.  Others will have to find their own way.

I would again reiterate that it is really important to get a top notch civil society contingent in place that can work together and be strategic.  Nominations are due 20 October, via the IGF website.

I have proposed that if indeed new members are seated by then and able to come, there should be break-out sessions for each stakeholder group so that we can do some in-depth consultation and transfer of local knowledge and experience.  Don’t know if the proposal will gain traction, but I believe  the civil society group would really benefit from something like this.

Best

Bill

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************


From andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Sep 17 04:26:40 2014
From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:26:40 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] UNESCO study
Message-ID: <CAOi1r6bcB6pDT+BohN0NKshaCcp6prGF0JzH470ba+Rbe2fYSw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear colleagues

UNESCO is very interested to receive input from civil society on internet
Issues study that they are currently considering.  We can respond to any of
the 30 questions where we feel we have value to add and all contributions
will be acknowledged.

UNESCO is also seeking sponsorship so that those of us who contribute (from
the less resourced countries) would also be considered for support to
attend the multi-stakeholder conference on the draft of the study, in Paris
on 3-4 March 2015.  The questionnaire is online at:


http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/crosscutting-priorities/unesco-internet-study/

*Andrew Puddephatt*
Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140917/eecb5eab/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Wed Sep 17 09:19:20 2014
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:19:20 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva
 1-3 December 2014
In-Reply-To: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com>
References: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org>

Hi Bill, 

Thanks for sharing this information. Having a hand-over/induction process to
the newbies by incumbent CS members sounds like a great idea. If this
doesn't happen at the December meeting, it could be set up online
independently. It might also be worth considering setting up a more
long-term mechanism to ensure continuity and knowledge-transfer, through an
advisory group of ex civil society MAG members or something similar.

Regardless of the new reps, do you know if there will be a way for the
broader community to shape the agenda of the December meeting? 

Best,
Lea

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: 17 September 2014 07:44
To: Best Bits; Governance
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3
December 2014

Hi

The IGF secretariat has announced that we will be Open Consultations and MAG
meetings at the International Telecom Union (!) in Geneva on 1-3 December
2014.  This could be an important meeting from the standpoint of advancing
civil society objectives for the IGF, in particular laying a foundation for
follow up to the NETmundial mandate to strengthen the IGF.  If the meetings
turn into another one of those occassions where we just sit around talking
about "what worked and what did not" in Istanbul (e.g. complaining about the
wifi, the number of panelists on main sessions, how many workshops, etc.) it
will be a missed opportunity to put us on a good path to the November 2015
meeting in Brazil.  Hopefully the new MAG members will have been announced
in advance and will be able to attend.

Hotels could be expensive at that time of year so anyone thinking of coming
might want to start looking into options now.  There should be some bits of
financial support for MAG members from Least Developed Countries (LDC's),
Developing Countries, and Transitional Economies.  Others will have to find
their own way.

I would again reiterate that it is really important to get a top notch civil
society contingent in place that can work together and be strategic.
Nominations are due 20 October, via the IGF website.

I have proposed that if indeed new members are seated by then and able to
come, there should be break-out sessions for each stakeholder group so that
we can do some in-depth consultation and transfer of local knowledge and
experience.  Don't know if the proposal will gain traction, but I believe
the civil society group would really benefit from something like this.

Best

Bill

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************



From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Sep 17 10:27:51 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:27:51 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] UNESCO study
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1r6bcB6pDT+BohN0NKshaCcp6prGF0JzH470ba+Rbe2fYSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOi1r6bcB6pDT+BohN0NKshaCcp6prGF0JzH470ba+Rbe2fYSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2w00bCw8P7LrQeexCHH=FNOfvO7uaYqhWG60YMJUWOmw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Andrew for the reminder.

In question 1 I see a reference to MIL in education. I had to look up the
acronym. Turns out to stand for Media and Information Literacy. This is a
UNESCO initiative to promote user-generated content (UGC) globally.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/media-development/media-literacy/mil-as-composite-concept/


As ISOC has noted in its IXP pogram, local content  is a key component in
developing healthy local network ecosystems. This UNESCO program is a
valuable contribution.

j

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>
wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> UNESCO is very interested to receive input from civil society on internet
> Issues study that they are currently considering.  We can respond to any
> of the 30 questions where we feel we have value to add and all
> contributions will be acknowledged.
>
> UNESCO is also seeking sponsorship so that those of us who contribute
> (from the less resourced countries) would also be considered for support to
> attend the multi-stakeholder conference on the draft of the study, in Paris
> on 3-4 March 2015.  The questionnaire is online at:
>
>
>
> http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/crosscutting-priorities/unesco-internet-study/
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt*
> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140917/dd8bf766/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 11:08:07 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:08:07 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva
 1-3 December 2014
In-Reply-To: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org>
References: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com> <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com>

Hi

On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Lea Kaspar <Lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Hi Bill, 
> 
> Thanks for sharing this information. Having a hand-over/induction process to
> the newbies by incumbent CS members sounds like a great idea.

So far, people on the MAG seem to be supporting it, and Chengetai has said he will look into the availability of extra rooms.
> 
> If this
> doesn't happen at the December meeting, it could be set up online
> independently. It might also be worth considering setting up a more
> long-term mechanism to ensure continuity and knowledge-transfer, through an
> advisory group of ex civil society MAG members or something similar.

Good ideas if someone wants to put the energy into it….we’ve got ten years of CS @ MAG and no readily accessible institutional memory.
> 
> Regardless of the new reps, do you know if there will be a way for the
> broader community to shape the agenda of the December meeting? 

Normally this is a pretty standard format event, I don’t recall that there was ever much bottom up input but others can correct me.  Doubt it was said they’d not accept some. Either way, we could start.  If for example there was a broad-based CS letter saying that part of the time should be set aside for a serious discussion of the NETmundial mandate and otherwise strengthening the IGF (WGIGF etc), and we could point the Chair, Secretariat, and MAG to this and say hey there’s community desire to talk about this, one suspects they would not ignore the request.  But absent anyone calling for something different, it could default to the somewhat sleepy "review of the meeting” format in which people bounce around on how many workshops and main sessions and speakers per etc.

Bill


> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: 17 September 2014 07:44
> To: Best Bits; Governance
> Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3
> December 2014
> 
> Hi
> 
> The IGF secretariat has announced that we will be Open Consultations and MAG
> meetings at the International Telecom Union (!) in Geneva on 1-3 December
> 2014.  This could be an important meeting from the standpoint of advancing
> civil society objectives for the IGF, in particular laying a foundation for
> follow up to the NETmundial mandate to strengthen the IGF.  If the meetings
> turn into another one of those occassions where we just sit around talking
> about "what worked and what did not" in Istanbul (e.g. complaining about the
> wifi, the number of panelists on main sessions, how many workshops, etc.) it
> will be a missed opportunity to put us on a good path to the November 2015
> meeting in Brazil.  Hopefully the new MAG members will have been announced
> in advance and will be able to attend.
> 
> Hotels could be expensive at that time of year so anyone thinking of coming
> might want to start looking into options now.  There should be some bits of
> financial support for MAG members from Least Developed Countries (LDC's),
> Developing Countries, and Transitional Economies.  Others will have to find
> their own way.
> 
> I would again reiterate that it is really important to get a top notch civil
> society contingent in place that can work together and be strategic.
> Nominations are due 20 October, via the IGF website.
> 
> I have proposed that if indeed new members are seated by then and able to
> come, there should be break-out sessions for each stakeholder group so that
> we can do some in-depth consultation and transfer of local knowledge and
> experience.  Don't know if the proposal will gain traction, but I believe
> the civil society group would really benefit from something like this.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>  www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
> 
> 


From andrew at gp-digital.org  Mon Sep  1 03:31:30 2014
From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 08:31:30 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com>

i would support such an initiative

*Andrew Puddephatt*
Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org




On 1 September 2014 09:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>
> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
> statement.)
>
> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an
> idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with
> this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil
> society.
>
> jeanette
>
> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/f55b4dd3/attachment.htm>

From gigialford at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 05:02:29 2014
From: gigialford at gmail.com (Ginous Alford)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:02:29 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <5404308C.5030302@apc.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com> <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org> <5404308C.5030302@apc.org>
Message-ID: <BC2D3D3E-BDD8-40C9-AD6B-DEE8FB496850@gmail.com>

Freedom House would like to support the statement, both a permanent IGF mandate and strengthening it. Let both Mary McGuire and me know if there is anything we can do to help with drafting.

Sent from my TRiCORDER

> On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:38, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi - I agree with the idea of a joint statement making the IGF permanent
> However, I would point out that yesterday at the Best Bits meeting we agreed to make a statement saying more than just that the IGF should be made permanent - we also were to preparea a statement on other issues and a smaller group had started notes on these during the meeting on the meeting etherpad https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y at lines 330-339 
> These still need more work -  a small group volunteered to work on developing these into a statement that would be sent to this list for comment and a call for support (myself, Dixie, Jeremy, Carolina - maybe one or two others?)
> I just want to make sure we do not lose sight of this 
> thanks
> 
> Joy
> 
>> On 1/09/2014 7:37 p.m., Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> Dear Jeanette,
>> 
>> I would also support this initiative.
>> 
>> Perhaps we can build on what has been done on the collaborative pad of
>> yesterdays BestBits meeting.
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Niels
> >
> 
>       >
> 
>       > ____________________________________________________________
> 
>       > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
>       >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> 
>       > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> 
>       >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/fc54fd00/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 12:15:48 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:15:48 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva
 1-3 December 2014
In-Reply-To: <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com>
References: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com> <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AA4758D9-FB42-447D-B659-FEC58647D593@gmail.com>



On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:08 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Lea Kaspar <Lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Bill, 
>> 
>> Thanks for sharing this information. Having a hand-over/induction process to
>> the newbies by incumbent CS members sounds like a great idea.
> 
> So far, people on the MAG seem to be supporting it, and Chengetai has said he will look into the availability of extra rooms.

I spoke too fast, Subi disagrees and says that stakeholders should just meet informally.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140917/c680a416/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Sep 17 12:47:35 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:47:35 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva
 1-3 December 2014
In-Reply-To: <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org>
References: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com> <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <5419BB27.5010807@acm.org>

Hi

I agree, it seems like there should be  good way to avoid
discontinuities.  In the meantime, trying to meet up and talk seems like
a strong start.

avri

On 17-Sep-14 09:19, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> Hi Bill, 
> 
> Thanks for sharing this information. Having a hand-over/induction process to
> the newbies by incumbent CS members sounds like a great idea. If this
> doesn't happen at the December meeting, it could be set up online
> independently. It might also be worth considering setting up a more
> long-term mechanism to ensure continuity and knowledge-transfer, through an
> advisory group of ex civil society MAG members or something similar.
> 
> Regardless of the new reps, do you know if there will be a way for the
> broader community to shape the agenda of the December meeting? 
> 
> Best,
> Lea
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: 17 September 2014 07:44
> To: Best Bits; Governance
> Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3
> December 2014
> 
> Hi
> 
> The IGF secretariat has announced that we will be Open Consultations and MAG
> meetings at the International Telecom Union (!) in Geneva on 1-3 December
> 2014.  This could be an important meeting from the standpoint of advancing
> civil society objectives for the IGF, in particular laying a foundation for
> follow up to the NETmundial mandate to strengthen the IGF.  If the meetings
> turn into another one of those occassions where we just sit around talking
> about "what worked and what did not" in Istanbul (e.g. complaining about the
> wifi, the number of panelists on main sessions, how many workshops, etc.) it
> will be a missed opportunity to put us on a good path to the November 2015
> meeting in Brazil.  Hopefully the new MAG members will have been announced
> in advance and will be able to attend.
> 
> Hotels could be expensive at that time of year so anyone thinking of coming
> might want to start looking into options now.  There should be some bits of
> financial support for MAG members from Least Developed Countries (LDC's),
> Developing Countries, and Transitional Economies.  Others will have to find
> their own way.
> 
> I would again reiterate that it is really important to get a top notch civil
> society contingent in place that can work together and be strategic.
> Nominations are due 20 October, via the IGF website.
> 
> I have proposed that if indeed new members are seated by then and able to
> come, there should be break-out sessions for each stakeholder group so that
> we can do some in-depth consultation and transfer of local knowledge and
> experience.  Don't know if the proposal will gain traction, but I believe
> the civil society group would really benefit from something like this.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

From subi.igp at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 12:54:40 2014
From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:24:40 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva
 1-3 December 2014
In-Reply-To: <AA4758D9-FB42-447D-B659-FEC58647D593@gmail.com>
References: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com>
	<025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org>
	<84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com>
	<AA4758D9-FB42-447D-B659-FEC58647D593@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFfuWVm-kngYn1vkzSWVAjLyJ+4p3=44axuzxMjvNY+9KK3xtA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Bill,

First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did not
disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both. A coordinated
approach between different stakeholder groups especially CS is very welcome
and essential. At the same time because to get anything done the MAG which
is a multistakeholder advisory group needs support of all stakeholders a
request has been made to do a formal orientation for all the new MAG
members. And then a second round of introductions between old and new MAG
members. We call that capacity building.  I am quite surprised that having
just endorsed the suggestions made by me you would choose to deliberately
misinform.

Also thanks for sharing the request I made to the secretariat for funding
and support for CS and academia. I did look at hotel prices during the week
and yes they are steep and without support from DESA and newly formed IGFSA
it is difficult to ensure physical presence. And CS I have argued for long
needs to be in the room in larger nos. Let’s work together  to facilitate
all those we can. The UN has a definite time stipulation for processing
funding requests and all that we've been suggesting is that we must ensure
support for new members even though the announcement of renewal might come
after the deadline for seeking support.

When I say they are not mutually exclusive that's exactly what I mean.

In the interest of full disclosure,  I will now follow this up with the
emails that I have sent to the secretariat and the MAG advocating strongly
for extension of all possible support to CS and academia. The meeting and
consultations are open to all.

We may have diffences in opinion and approaches but let's remain civil,
balanced and fair towards each other.  For any dialogue to occur we must be
able to respect our differences and still be able to work for a common
cause.

The main focus session that I helped facilitate this year looks at
strengthening the IGF and I believe NETmundial is an approach and a means
not an end in itself.

Bill I'd like to take this opportunity to put my appreciation on reccord
for all the work you have done at the IGF as a MAG member. With continuity
there is also value in allowing new voices to emerge and respecting both
diversity of opinion and approaches. Sometimes when we put more
responsibility on people less experienced and delegate, it creates new
leaders and allows for a healthier ecosystem.  I hope we will find
generosity within, to give up what is to build, create and renew.

I am positive with a coordinated approach CS can put in a vibrant and well
rounded representation in this significant year for the IGF.

Regards

Subi Chaturvedi



On 17 Sep 2014 21:45, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:08 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Lea Kaspar <Lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bill,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing this information. Having a hand-over/induction
process to
>>> the newbies by incumbent CS members sounds like a great idea.
>>
>>
>> So far, people on the MAG seem to be supporting it, and Chengetai has
said he will look into the availability of extra rooms.
>
>
> I spoke too fast, Subi disagrees and says that stakeholders should just
meet informally.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140917/967d0132/attachment.htm>

From subi.igp at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 13:14:28 2014
From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:44:28 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Mail 1- Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3 December
 2014
Message-ID: <CAFfuWVnW=+LyWwJpqGh=Xu=6Rzf8CKo1_z4on+EaSsSST0Fs-g@mail.gmail.com>

Sharing the request made to the secretariat.  For extending support to new
and old CS members for the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meeting. The
secretariat has just responded.  Some support is available for developing
country CS MAG members and will be extended to both new and old members to
facilitate their physical presence.

There should also be some support available through IGFSA as well for
members of the community to attend the open Consultation and MAG meeting.
We're in the early stages of preparation.  Will keep you updated.

And all the very best to all the CS applicants. Will be happy to assist in
any way possible if you have any queries while making your applications.

Regards

Subi Chaturvedi

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
> Date: 17 Sep 2014 00:00
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3
December 2014
> To: "Markus Kummer" <kummer at isoc.org>, "cmasango at unog.ch" <
cmasango at unog.ch>
> Cc: "MAG-public" <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>

Chengetai, thank you for the confirmation. I join colleagues in expressing
our gratitude to ITU.

We are well aware of the extreme gymnastics that the secretariat performs
to collate applications and work through the process of reconstituting the
MAG. This is to put on record the appreciation that we all have as MAG
members, for the excellent work done throughout the preparatory process and
during the IGF by Chengetai and his team.

Also agree with Markus. The UN rules stipulate a mandatory time period
within which the application for support must be made, if memory serves me
right. The renewal process might not have culminated by then. But having
been a new member in the recent past, I vouch for the immense value that
the physical presence holds for new and first time MAG members. The
orientation session and the ability to absorb and contribute to the
conversation is a definite way to build capacity for newly inducted
members. I can testify from personal experience, about the learning which
has occurred from the support extended and wish that the others will also
have the opportunity to learn and contribute towards the IGF ecosystem.
There is no better way to work towards a truly meaningful #IGF2015 for new
members than jumping into the deep end of the pool.

I am hopeful that if there is a possibility to have the new members
physically present for the meeting the option will be explored. And the
support offered. Just checked the hotel prices in Geneva during the week.
They are pretty steep.

Without the support, it is near impossible for developing country
participants and members from civil society and academia,  to afford their
in person, interventions.

Both DESA's support and IGFSA will be valuable force multipliers.

warmest

Subi
----

Subi Chaturvedi
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16 September 2014 23:36, Markus Kummer <kummer at isoc.org> wrote:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140917/cec04286/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 14:50:30 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:50:30 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva
 1-3 December 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAFfuWVm-kngYn1vkzSWVAjLyJ+4p3=44axuzxMjvNY+9KK3xtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com> <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> <AA4758D9-FB42-447D-B659-FEC58647D593@gmail.com> <CAFfuWVm-kngYn1vkzSWVAjLyJ+4p3=44axuzxMjvNY+9KK3xtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <280EEF68-573B-40FC-AC24-778AFB6ED324@gmail.com>

Hi Subi

On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subi.igp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Bill,
> 
> First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did not disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both.
> 
I did neither.  You said,

On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:

> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG.
> 
> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul.
> 
> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past,  a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together.
> 
> We can still do both as we have done in the past.
> 
> 
So whereas I proposed something new, setting aside a formal time in the agenda for new and old MAG members to meet in the stakeholder groups they nominally come from, you gave them permission to meet informally, as in the past.  This is the opposite of what I was suggested.

I can understand why you might not want a meeting of civil society people involved in the MAG, just like I could understand your efforts to privately control the main session on the IGF in Istanbul.  But please do not pretend we are saying the same thing when we are not.

Cheers

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140917/cf089fb8/attachment.htm>

From subi.igp at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 22:50:22 2014
From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:20:22 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva
 1-3 December 2014
In-Reply-To: <280EEF68-573B-40FC-AC24-778AFB6ED324@gmail.com>
References: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com>
	<025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org>
	<84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com>
	<AA4758D9-FB42-447D-B659-FEC58647D593@gmail.com>
	<CAFfuWVm-kngYn1vkzSWVAjLyJ+4p3=44axuzxMjvNY+9KK3xtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<280EEF68-573B-40FC-AC24-778AFB6ED324@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFfuWVnFsvJuh8moFA2urU0PrSndPEesAfnJYM8E=TXjMs2ygg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bill,

Yes you did. And you're at it again.

First let me address the main session because you share information
selectively.

On the main a seven month process was followed.  With you contributing.
With a list of panelists you would like to see on the panel amongst other
things. Which incidentally were also coinciding with the same names you had
as contributors to your book. All of them came with a lot of expertise.
Some we'd already reached out to and you're aware were on the panel. Just
as you contributed, others from the MAG did too, through online inputs and
in physical meetings towards shaping the main process. It was neither my
intention nor is it possible to privately control anything on the MAG.
Quite the contrary. We work through rough consensus.

Several emails were sent seeking inputs at every single stage. It was a
culmination of months of hard work which resulted in an interactive and
productive main session on the role of IGF and the internet ecosystem along
with strengthening the IGF. I am not expecting my effort and my time to be
recognised but do please stop making wild allegations and your campaign of
misinformation and disinformation.

We may disagree on approaches but as I said that shouldn't stop us from
working towards a common goal which I believe is strengthening the IG
ecosystem through a more robust and vibrant IGF.

I also understand your emphasis on quality and experience for any
contributions to be acceptable at IGF including workshops. I disagree
there, we may be a little rough around the edges, our proposals may not be
well written in perfect english, we may not have all the speakers lined up
months in advance and our issues may vary from a developing country
perspective but they are essential too. We are also a part of the same
ecosystem.  So a little tolerance from experienced members such as yourself
will go along way in not chilling new voices. Others might not be as
resilient or persistent.

Thank you for your understanding and patience.

Here's the full text of what I had shared with the secretariat and the MAG.

We have an intelligent community, so you do not need to paraphrase my text
or quote it in part, throughly out of context.

Also one last thing before I close this conversation,  not only would I
like to meet the CS members as I always do, I would also like to make the
new members feel welcome. It goes a long way in allaying fears or any
nervousness that any of us may have around each other. It is difficult to
take to the mic in a room full of strangets for some. We did agree tgat we
will make a deliberate attempt to break the club of insiders perception.

I do recall an email I sent to you when I joined the MAG in 2013 seeking
your advice and mentoring. Essentially asking you to show me the ropes. I
understand you're a busy man and wouldn't have had the time to respond to a
new members request.  In person however when I sought you out, you did give
me sound advice to sit in the front row as that would be a good way to
follow what was going on, I took it.

Text of the mail I sent so that the secretariat may organise a capacity
building session and interaction for new members because it is helpful.

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
Date: 17 Sep 2014 19:33
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] 答复: Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3
December 2014
To: "Chengetai Masango" <cmasango at unog.ch>, "Janis Karklins" <
karklinsj at gmail.com>, <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Cc:
Thanks Chengetai for the clarification.  And as always your support to old,
not so old and new MAG members is invaluable.

There are three ideas on the table at the moment for the orientation for
new MAG members. They are not mutually exclusive.  Some proposals received:

This is an attempt at summarising them and then we hope we can look at the
best fit.

1. We have a general orientation for all the new members with the chair and
the secretariat.  All the present MAG members who wish to join voluntarily
can also participate.
This was done in 2013 and was very well received.  Scheduled during the
lunch break on day 1.

Preceeded by a "meet and greet", round of introductions by all MAG members
stating their stakeholder groups and their affiliations this is done in the
presence of all MAG members and the wider community during the first 15
minutes of Day 1 of the open Consultation and MAG meeting.

Both these activities are a part of the formal agenda.

I support the process because it addresses some of the concerns raised by
colleagues like Angelic and others.

2. We do a seperate break out group on stakeholder basis.

While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all
stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG.

Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an
opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and
I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul.

While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally
as they have done in the past,  a joint session which includes all MAG
members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together.

We can still do both as we have done in the past.

So that leads us to Option 3

3. As suggested by Marilyn. And I'd like to also volunteer.  We can do this
on day 1 as an additional initiative where we combine a "hello my name
is... followed by these are my expectations from the IGF and this is what I
bring to the MAG by way of skill sets or expertise..

Since time is usually limited and this is mostly informal and without mics
we'd like it to be an icebreaker.

Trust this is helpful for all members to consider. I would however make a
request that the secretariat and the chair, also consider an orientation
session during lunch break and a formal round of introductions on Day1 with
all present.

Regards

Subi Chaturvedi

Regards

Subi Chaturvedi

On 18 Sep 2014 00:20, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Subi
>
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subi.igp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Bill,
>>
>> First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did
not disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both.
>
> I did neither.  You said,
>
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all
stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG.
>>
>> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an
opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and
I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul.
>>
>> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other
informally as they have done in the past,  a joint session which includes
all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work
together.
>>
>> We can still do both as we have done in the past.
>>
>>
> So whereas I proposed something new, setting aside a formal time in the
agenda for new and old MAG members to meet in the stakeholder groups they
nominally come from, you gave them permission to meet informally, as in the
past.  This is the opposite of what I was suggested.
>
> I can understand why you might not want a meeting of civil society people
involved in the MAG, just like I could understand your efforts to privately
control the main session on the IGF in Istanbul.  But please do not pretend
we are saying the same thing when we are not.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140918/79891174/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 04:29:31 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:29:31 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva
 1-3 December 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAFfuWVnFsvJuh8moFA2urU0PrSndPEesAfnJYM8E=TXjMs2ygg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com> <025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org> <84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com> <AA4758D9-FB42-447D-B659-FEC58647D593@gmail.com> <CAFfuWVm-kngYn1vkzSWVAjLyJ+4p3=44axuzxMjvNY+9KK3xtA@mail.gmail.com> <280EEF68-573B-40FC-AC24-778AFB6ED324@gmail.com> <CAFfuWVnFsvJuh8moFA2urU0PrSndPEesAfnJYM8E=TXjMs2ygg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DA5742D7-E69C-45DB-A147-88B7CD4734AD@gmail.com>

Subi

As I’m not interested in participating in a public spectacle with you, I’m not going to respond in kind to your inflammatory verbiage and strategems.  So just the facts and then let’s move on.

Re: the December MAG meeting, I was informing people that I’d suggested to MAG that there be a time slot for stakeholder group meetings. You replied counter-proposing that SGs meet informally, so I merely noted that.  Quoting your reply to my suggestion is not paraphrasing or taking things out of context, and the rest of the message you forwarded doesn’t change what you said in response to my suggestion.

Re: the main session that was supposed to have discussed ways to strengthen the IGF in keeping with the NETmundial statement, there are people on these lists who know how you handled it, and anyone else who is interested can have a look at the relevant threads at 
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org  and
http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/  

Re: the additional narrative you apparently are trying to construct on workshops, the MAG's rankings are the product of a collective assessment and many proposals from many sources do not make the cut.  If that has included ones you were involved in or otherwise favored and hence the ranking system should be different, convince your colleagues on the MAG to change it.

Bye

Bill

On Sep 18, 2014, at 4:50 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subi.igp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> 
> Yes you did. And you're at it again.
> 
> First let me address the main session because you share information selectively.
> 
> On the main a seven month process was followed.  With you contributing.  With a list of panelists you would like to see on the panel amongst other things. Which incidentally were also coinciding with the same names you had as contributors to your book. All of them came with a lot of expertise.  Some we'd already reached out to and you're aware were on the panel. Just as you contributed, others from the MAG did too, through online inputs and in physical meetings towards shaping the main process. It was neither my intention nor is it possible to privately control anything on the MAG.  Quite the contrary. We work through rough consensus.
> 
> Several emails were sent seeking inputs at every single stage. It was a culmination of months of hard work which resulted in an interactive and productive main session on the role of IGF and the internet ecosystem along with strengthening the IGF. I am not expecting my effort and my time to be recognised but do please stop making wild allegations and your campaign of misinformation and disinformation.
> 
> We may disagree on approaches but as I said that shouldn't stop us from working towards a common goal which I believe is strengthening the IG ecosystem through a more robust and vibrant IGF.
> 
> I also understand your emphasis on quality and experience for any contributions to be acceptable at IGF including workshops. I disagree there, we may be a little rough around the edges, our proposals may not be well written in perfect english, we may not have all the speakers lined up months in advance and our issues may vary from a developing country perspective but they are essential too. We are also a part of the same ecosystem.  So a little tolerance from experienced members such as yourself will go along way in not chilling new voices. Others might not be as resilient or persistent.
> 
> Thank you for your understanding and patience.
> 
> Here's the full text of what I had shared with the secretariat and the MAG.
> 
> We have an intelligent community, so you do not need to paraphrase my text or quote it in part, throughly out of context.
> 
> Also one last thing before I close this conversation,  not only would I like to meet the CS members as I always do, I would also like to make the new members feel welcome. It goes a long way in allaying fears or any nervousness that any of us may have around each other. It is difficult to take to the mic in a room full of strangets for some. We did agree tgat we will make a deliberate attempt to break the club of insiders perception.
> 
> I do recall an email I sent to you when I joined the MAG in 2013 seeking your advice and mentoring. Essentially asking you to show me the ropes. I understand you're a busy man and wouldn't have had the time to respond to a new members request.  In person however when I sought you out, you did give me sound advice to sit in the front row as that would be a good way to follow what was going on, I took it.
> 
> Text of the mail I sent so that the secretariat may organise a capacity building session and interaction for new members because it is helpful.
> 
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
> Date: 17 Sep 2014 19:33
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] 答复: Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3 December 2014
> To: "Chengetai Masango" <cmasango at unog.ch>, "Janis Karklins" <karklinsj at gmail.com>, <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Cc:
> Thanks Chengetai for the clarification.  And as always your support to old, not so old and new MAG members is invaluable.
> 
> There are three ideas on the table at the moment for the orientation for new MAG members. They are not mutually exclusive.  Some proposals received:
> 
> This is an attempt at summarising them and then we hope we can look at the best fit.
> 
> 1. We have a general orientation for all the new members with the chair and the secretariat.  All the present MAG members who wish to join voluntarily can also participate.
> This was done in 2013 and was very well received.  Scheduled during the lunch break on day 1.
> 
> Preceeded by a "meet and greet", round of introductions by all MAG members stating their stakeholder groups and their affiliations this is done in the presence of all MAG members and the wider community during the first 15 minutes of Day 1 of the open Consultation and MAG meeting.
> 
> Both these activities are a part of the formal agenda.
> 
> I support the process because it addresses some of the concerns raised by colleagues like Angelic and others.
> 
> 2. We do a seperate break out group on stakeholder basis.
> 
> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG.
> 
> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul.
> 
> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past,  a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together.
> 
> We can still do both as we have done in the past.
> 
> So that leads us to Option 3
> 
> 3. As suggested by Marilyn. And I'd like to also volunteer.  We can do this on day 1 as an additional initiative where we combine a "hello my name is... followed by these are my expectations from the IGF and this is what I bring to the MAG by way of skill sets or expertise..
> 
> Since time is usually limited and this is mostly informal and without mics we'd like it to be an icebreaker.
> 
> Trust this is helpful for all members to consider. I would however make a request that the secretariat and the chair, also consider an orientation session during lunch break and a formal round of introductions on Day1 with all present.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Subi Chaturvedi
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Subi Chaturvedi
> 
> 
> On 18 Sep 2014 00:20, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Subi
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subi.igp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Bill,
> >>
> >> First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did not disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both.
> >
> > I did neither.  You said,
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG.
> >>
> >> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul.
> >>
> >> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past,  a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together.
> >>
> >> We can still do both as we have done in the past.
> >>
> >>
> > So whereas I proposed something new, setting aside a formal time in the agenda for new and old MAG members to meet in the stakeholder groups they nominally come from, you gave them permission to meet informally, as in the past.  This is the opposite of what I was suggested.
> >
> > I can understand why you might not want a meeting of civil society people involved in the MAG, just like I could understand your efforts to privately control the main session on the IGF in Istanbul.  But please do not pretend we are saying the same thing when we are not.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Bill
> 

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140918/6e45e777/attachment.htm>

From subi.igp at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 06:29:08 2014
From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:59:08 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva
 1-3 December 2014
In-Reply-To: <DA5742D7-E69C-45DB-A147-88B7CD4734AD@gmail.com>
References: <D31B8EA5-874F-4538-A20D-788A7E894CC2@gmail.com>
	<025701cfd279$fe68cab0$fb3a6010$@gp-digital.org>
	<84A387B6-C677-4674-8BF4-37C4ECA4B657@gmail.com>
	<AA4758D9-FB42-447D-B659-FEC58647D593@gmail.com>
	<CAFfuWVm-kngYn1vkzSWVAjLyJ+4p3=44axuzxMjvNY+9KK3xtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<280EEF68-573B-40FC-AC24-778AFB6ED324@gmail.com>
	<CAFfuWVnFsvJuh8moFA2urU0PrSndPEesAfnJYM8E=TXjMs2ygg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DA5742D7-E69C-45DB-A147-88B7CD4734AD@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFfuWVnBJVwY-UGG_ckVGBXjRxAWkguzrrBr2qEuOR9cDZ8zsg@mail.gmail.com>

My thoughts exactly Bill. And for the record I did submit a proposal, in
2013 when it was still ok for the MAG to do so. It not only made the cut
but was ranked fairly high. But this isn't about me. So do not trivialise
the issue or make it personal.  You are right a ratings improvements and
evaluation mechanism has been initiated and it is a result of cumulative
efforts. The transcripts of the consultation are online my interventions
too. As is your response to all such suggestions and emphasis on Quality
and well written workshop proposals.

You're right it is a constant process of self improvement and evolution
that we go through each year regarding formats and processes.  Will keep
working on it.

Also I wish you well. Hope you will continue your engagement with the MAG
and the process.  Your inputs as always are welcome.

Regards

Subi Chaturvedi

On 18 Sep 2014 13:59, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Subi
>
> As I’m not interested in participating in a public spectacle with you,
I’m not going to respond in kind to your inflammatory verbiage and
strategems.  So just the facts and then let’s move on.
>
> Re: the December MAG meeting, I was informing people that I’d suggested
to MAG that there be a time slot for stakeholder group meetings. You
replied counter-proposing that SGs meet informally, so I merely noted that.
 Quoting your reply to my suggestion is not paraphrasing or taking things
out of context, and the rest of the message you forwarded doesn’t change
what you said in response to my suggestion.
>
> Re: the main session that was supposed to have discussed ways to
strengthen the IGF in keeping with the NETmundial statement, there are
people on these lists who know how you handled it, and anyone else who is
interested can have a look at the relevant threads at
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
 and
> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/
>
> Re: the additional narrative you apparently are trying to construct on
workshops, the MAG's rankings are the product of a collective assessment
and many proposals from many sources do not make the cut.  If that has
included ones you were involved in or otherwise favored and hence the
ranking system should be different, convince your colleagues on the MAG to
change it.
>
> Bye
>
> Bill
>
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 4:50 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subi.igp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> Yes you did. And you're at it again.
>>
>> First let me address the main session because you share information
selectively.
>>
>> On the main a seven month process was followed.  With you contributing.
With a list of panelists you would like to see on the panel amongst other
things. Which incidentally were also coinciding with the same names you had
as contributors to your book. All of them came with a lot of expertise.
Some we'd already reached out to and you're aware were on the panel. Just
as you contributed, others from the MAG did too, through online inputs and
in physical meetings towards shaping the main process. It was neither my
intention nor is it possible to privately control anything on the MAG.
Quite the contrary. We work through rough consensus.
>>
>> Several emails were sent seeking inputs at every single stage. It was a
culmination of months of hard work which resulted in an interactive and
productive main session on the role of IGF and the internet ecosystem along
with strengthening the IGF. I am not expecting my effort and my time to be
recognised but do please stop making wild allegations and your campaign of
misinformation and disinformation.
>>
>> We may disagree on approaches but as I said that shouldn't stop us from
working towards a common goal which I believe is strengthening the IG
ecosystem through a more robust and vibrant IGF.
>>
>> I also understand your emphasis on quality and experience for any
contributions to be acceptable at IGF including workshops. I disagree
there, we may be a little rough around the edges, our proposals may not be
well written in perfect english, we may not have all the speakers lined up
months in advance and our issues may vary from a developing country
perspective but they are essential too. We are also a part of the same
ecosystem.  So a little tolerance from experienced members such as yourself
will go along way in not chilling new voices. Others might not be as
resilient or persistent.
>>
>> Thank you for your understanding and patience.
>>
>> Here's the full text of what I had shared with the secretariat and the
MAG.
>>
>> We have an intelligent community, so you do not need to paraphrase my
text or quote it in part, throughly out of context.
>>
>> Also one last thing before I close this conversation,  not only would I
like to meet the CS members as I always do, I would also like to make the
new members feel welcome. It goes a long way in allaying fears or any
nervousness that any of us may have around each other. It is difficult to
take to the mic in a room full of strangets for some. We did agree tgat we
will make a deliberate attempt to break the club of insiders perception.
>>
>> I do recall an email I sent to you when I joined the MAG in 2013 seeking
your advice and mentoring. Essentially asking you to show me the ropes. I
understand you're a busy man and wouldn't have had the time to respond to a
new members request.  In person however when I sought you out, you did give
me sound advice to sit in the front row as that would be a good way to
follow what was going on, I took it.
>>
>> Text of the mail I sent so that the secretariat may organise a capacity
building session and interaction for new members because it is helpful.
>>
>> --------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
>> Date: 17 Sep 2014 19:33
>> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] 答复: Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3
December 2014
>> To: "Chengetai Masango" <cmasango at unog.ch>, "Janis Karklins" <
karklinsj at gmail.com>, <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> Cc:
>> Thanks Chengetai for the clarification.  And as always your support to
old, not so old and new MAG members is invaluable.
>>
>> There are three ideas on the table at the moment for the orientation for
new MAG members. They are not mutually exclusive.  Some proposals received:
>>
>> This is an attempt at summarising them and then we hope we can look at
the best fit.
>>
>> 1. We have a general orientation for all the new members with the chair
and the secretariat.  All the present MAG members who wish to join
voluntarily can also participate.
>> This was done in 2013 and was very well received.  Scheduled during the
lunch break on day 1.
>>
>> Preceeded by a "meet and greet", round of introductions by all MAG
members stating their stakeholder groups and their affiliations this is
done in the presence of all MAG members and the wider community during the
first 15 minutes of Day 1 of the open Consultation and MAG meeting.
>>
>> Both these activities are a part of the formal agenda.
>>
>> I support the process because it addresses some of the concerns raised
by colleagues like Angelic and others.
>>
>> 2. We do a seperate break out group on stakeholder basis.
>>
>> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all
stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG.
>>
>> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an
opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and
I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul.
>>
>> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other
informally as they have done in the past,  a joint session which includes
all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work
together.
>>
>> We can still do both as we have done in the past.
>>
>> So that leads us to Option 3
>>
>> 3. As suggested by Marilyn. And I'd like to also volunteer.  We can do
this on day 1 as an additional initiative where we combine a "hello my name
is... followed by these are my expectations from the IGF and this is what I
bring to the MAG by way of skill sets or expertise..
>>
>> Since time is usually limited and this is mostly informal and without
mics we'd like it to be an icebreaker.
>>
>> Trust this is helpful for all members to consider. I would however make
a request that the secretariat and the chair, also consider an orientation
session during lunch break and a formal round of introductions on Day1 with
all present.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Subi Chaturvedi
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Subi Chaturvedi
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2014 00:20, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Subi
>> >
>> > On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subi.igp at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Bill,
>> >>
>> >> First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did
not disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both.
>> >
>> > I did neither.  You said,
>> >
>> > On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >
>> >> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all
stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG.
>> >>
>> >> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have
an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana
and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul.
>> >>
>> >> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other
informally as they have done in the past,  a joint session which includes
all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work
together.
>> >>
>> >> We can still do both as we have done in the past.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > So whereas I proposed something new, setting aside a formal time in
the agenda for new and old MAG members to meet in the stakeholder groups
they nominally come from, you gave them permission to meet informally, as
in the past.  This is the opposite of what I was suggested.
>> >
>> > I can understand why you might not want a meeting of civil society
people involved in the MAG, just like I could understand your efforts to
privately control the main session on the IGF in Istanbul.  But please do
not pretend we are saying the same thing when we are not.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Bill
>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140918/646b6fe3/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Sep 18 15:21:50 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:21:50 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives
 for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
Message-ID: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>

This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG). 

This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30

If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
jmalcolm at eff.org.

Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.

CRITERIA

  * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
    working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
    assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
  * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
    networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
    where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
  * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
  * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
    constructively in the MAG deliberations.

Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
process.


Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140918/9f80dc5f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140918/9f80dc5f/attachment.sig>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Sep 18 15:26:43 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:26:43 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
Message-ID: <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>

I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this 
list, very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable 
to report back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the 
strongest candidates we can get for this job.


jeanette

Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>
> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>
> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>
> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>
> CRITERIA
>
>   * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>     working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>     assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>   * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>     networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>     where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>   * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>   * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>     constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>
> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
> process.
>
>
> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From qshatti at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 05:18:47 2014
From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:18:47 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Invitation_to_join_Workshop_196_=22IGF_=26_E?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?nhanced_Cooperation=2C_Parallel_Tracks_or_Connected=22_-_Tuesda?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?y_September_2=2C_2014=2C_11=3A00_am_=E2=80=93_12=3A30_pm=2C_Wor?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?kshop_Room_03_=28Rumeli_-1_Floor_/_Room_1=29?=
Message-ID: <CAC2SYrPEZ_a_0e+JoApE2-8G9hrNv5nuhi+KXnS0HFMRD27CJA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Colleagues & IGF Participants:
You are cordially invited to join us and participate in Workshop 196 " IGF
& Enhanced Cooperation, Parallel Tracks or Connected" organized by Kuwait
Information Technology Society. The Workshop dates and Venue are:

Date                        : Tuesday September 2, 2014
Time                       : 11:00 am – 12:30 pm
Venue.                    :  Workshop Room 03 (Rumeli -1 Floor / Room 1)

The Agenda of the workshop:
- Mr. Qusai AlShatti                 Background on Workshop Topic &
Panelists Introduction
- Miss Désirée Miloshevic Multistakeholder Engagement in Enhanced
Cooperation
                                                process
- Mr. Ayman El-Sherbiny         The Role on Intergovernmental organizations
in Enhanced
                                                Cooperation
- Mr. Peter Major                 Role and Ourcome of the Workgroup on
Enhanced
                                                Cooperation (WGEC)
- Mr. Carlos A. Afonso         The View of Civil Society on the Enhanced
Cooperation
                                                 Process
- Mr. Faycal Bayouli                  Tunisia Experience in Enhanced
Cooperation and the WGEC
- Ms. Marilyn Cade                  The View of The Private Sector on the
Enhanced Cooperation
                                                 Process
Workshop Participants,   panelists and Remote Participants : Interactive
Discussion
Summary & Closing Remarks.

Find attached with this email the workshop brochure.

Looking forward to see you all with us in the workshop.

Best Regards,

Qusai AlShatti
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/fb5e61dd/attachment.htm>

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Fri Sep 19 03:57:06 2014
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:57:06 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
	<541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CAPqXojLfFub7i=xBgsBzx2BFt=uU1J4HsmLk4PCG8QiRs+bF0w@mail.gmail.com>

+1

2014-09-18 21:26 GMT+02:00 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>:

> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this list,
> very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable to report
> back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the strongest
> candidates we can get for this job.
>
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>
>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>
>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>
>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>
>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>>
>> CRITERIA
>>
>>   * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>     working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>>     assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>   * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>     networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>>     where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>   * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>   * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>     constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>
>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>> process.
>>
>>
>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance
(GIG) Ohu
 Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter
<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE> ∙
 Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> ∙ Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> ∙
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140919/e6eeb793/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 08:05:02 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:05:02 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>

+1 on Avri and I’d like to nominate Lea Kaspar of Global Partners Digital for all the same reasons.

Best

Bill

On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this list, very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable to report back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the strongest candidates we can get for this job.
> 
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>> 
>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>> 
>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>> 
>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>> 
>> CRITERIA
>> 
>>  * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>    working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>>    assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>  * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>    networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>>    where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>  * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>  * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>    constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>> 
>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>> process.
>> 
>> 
>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>> 
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>> 
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> 
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Sep 19 08:29:22 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:29:22 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu> <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>


On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:05 PM, William Drake wrote:

> +1 on Avri and I’d like to nominate Lea Kaspar of Global Partners Digital for all the same reasons.
> 


Strongly support both Avri and Lea.  

Adam




> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> 
>> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this list, very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable to report back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the strongest candidates we can get for this job.
>> 
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
>>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>> 
>>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
>>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
>>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>> 
>>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>> 
>>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
>>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
>>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>>> 
>>> CRITERIA
>>> 
>>> * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>>   working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>>>   assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>> * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>>   networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>>>   where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>> * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>>   constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>> 
>>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>>> process.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
>>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> 
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>> 
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>  www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 08:52:00 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:52:00 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
	<541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
	<D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>
	<6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com>

+1 for Avri and Lea

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Adam <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

>
> On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:05 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> > +1 on Avri and I’d like to nominate Lea Kaspar of Global Partners
> Digital for all the same reasons.
> >
>
>
> Strongly support both Avri and Lea.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> > Best
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this
> list, very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable to
> report back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the
> strongest candidates we can get for this job.
> >>
> >>
> >> jeanette
> >>
> >> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
> >>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for
> the
> >>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
> >>>
> >>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil
> society
> >>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
> >>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
> >>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
> >>>
> >>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
> >>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
> >>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
> >>>
> >>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
> >>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
> >>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence
> of
> >>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
> >>>
> >>> CRITERIA
> >>>
> >>> * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
> >>>   working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
> >>>   assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
> >>> * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
> >>>   networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
> >>>   where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
> >>> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
> >>> * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
> >>>   constructively in the MAG deliberations.
> >>>
> >>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
> >>> process.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
> >>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jeremy Malcolm
> >>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> >>> https://eff.org
> >>> jmalcolm at eff.org
> >>>
> >>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> >>>
> >>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> > ***********************************************
> > William J. Drake
> > International Fellow & Lecturer
> >  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> >  University of Zurich, Switzerland
> > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> >  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
> >  www.williamdrake.org
> > ***********************************************
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140919/f2e531a0/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 12:14:11 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:14:11 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
	<541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
	<D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>
	<6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com>

+ 1 for Lea and Avri

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 for Avri and Lea
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Adam <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:05 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>> > +1 on Avri and I’d like to nominate Lea Kaspar of Global Partners
>> Digital for all the same reasons.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Strongly support both Avri and Lea.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Best
>> >
>> > Bill
>> >
>> > On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this
>> list, very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable to
>> report back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the
>> strongest candidates we can get for this job.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> jeanette
>> >>
>> >> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>> >>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for
>> the
>> >>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>> >>>
>> >>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil
>> society
>> >>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>> >>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above
>> groups.
>> >>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>> >>>
>> >>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>> >>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>> >>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>> >>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically
>> address
>> >>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence
>> of
>> >>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>> >>>
>> >>> CRITERIA
>> >>>
>> >>> * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>> >>>   working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>> >>>   assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>> >>> * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>> >>>   networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>> >>>   where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>> >>> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>> >>> * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>> >>>   constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>> >>>
>> >>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>> >>> process.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of
>> candidates
>> >>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> >>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> >>> https://eff.org
>> >>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>> >>>
>> >>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> >>>
>> >>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >>>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >
>> > ***********************************************
>> > William J. Drake
>> > International Fellow & Lecturer
>> >  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> >  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>> >  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>> >  www.williamdrake.org
>> > ***********************************************
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140919/209b3b2b/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Sat Sep 20 09:12:56 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 09:12:56 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <541D7D58.1040506@acm.org>

Hi,

Thank you Jeanette.

And thank you to those who have endorsed Jeanette's nomination.

I very much appreciate the nomination and am happy to be considered by
the Civil society coordination group (CSCG) for candidacy in the
Internet governance forum (IGF) Multistakeholder advisory group (MAG).

I will write a longer message, responsive to the criteria in greater
detail before the close of the nomination period.

Thank you

avri



On 18-Sep-14 15:26, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this
> list, very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable
> to report back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the
> strongest candidates we can get for this job.
> 
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>
>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>
>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>
>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>>
>> CRITERIA
>>
>>   * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>     working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>>     assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>   * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>     networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>>     where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>   * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>   * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>     constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>
>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>> process.
>>
>>
>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Sep 22 03:26:01 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:26:01 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>	<541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>	<D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>	<6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>	<CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org>

Great nominations. Both Avri and Lea will be excellent.
I assume that this discussion on the list will help the Steering
Committee come up with names to give to the Civil Society Steering Group?

But Best Bits should also make sure to have some strong names from
'developing' countries. Also, keep in mind that people nominated from
developed countries would need to have access to funding to attend
meetings of the MAG.  Support for MAG meetings is not easy to get and is
generally only available for people from developing countries. In my
time on the MAG from 2012 to 2014 I think I only received UN support to
attend a MAG meeting on 2 occasions and on one of those the funding did
not include airfare.

Anriette


On 19/09/2014 18:14, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> + 1 for Lea and Avri
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Gene Kimmelman
> <genekimmelman at gmail.com <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     +1 for Avri and Lea
>
>     On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Adam <ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>     <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
>
>
>         On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:05 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
>         > +1 on Avri and I’d like to nominate Lea Kaspar of Global
>         Partners Digital for all the same reasons.
>         >
>
>
>         Strongly support both Avri and Lea.
>
>         Adam
>
>
>
>
>         > Best
>         >
>         > Bill
>         >
>         > On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann
>         <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> wrote:
>         >
>         >> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well
>         known on this list, very experienced and committed, and
>         certainly willing and capable to report back. We need good
>         people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the strongest candidates
>         we can get for this job.
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> jeanette
>         >>
>         >> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>         >>> This is a call for nominations for civil society
>         representatives for the
>         >>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>         >>>
>         >>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several
>         civil society
>         >>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG,
>         and Just Net
>         >>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the
>         above groups.
>         >>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>         >>>
>         >>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been
>         nominated and
>         >>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>         >>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>.
>         >>>
>         >>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name,
>         country of
>         >>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also
>         specifically address
>         >>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples
>         and evidence of
>         >>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection
>         criteria.
>         >>>
>         >>> CRITERIA
>         >>>
>         >>> * Past record of active engagement as part of civil
>         society groups
>         >>>   working on internet governance issues, acting or
>         speaking out
>         >>>   assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>         >>> * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report
>         back to CS
>         >>>   networks (including beyond those focused on internet
>         governance
>         >>>   where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>         >>> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>         >>> * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>         >>>   constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>         >>>
>         >>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also
>         follow this
>         >>> process.
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list
>         of candidates
>         >>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>         >>>
>         >>> --
>         >>> Jeremy Malcolm
>         >>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>         >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>         >>> https://eff.org
>         >>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>         >>>
>         >>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>         >>>
>         >>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>> ____________________________________________________________
>         >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         >>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         >>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>         >>>
>         >> ____________________________________________________________
>         >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         >>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         >>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>         >
>         > ***********************************************
>         > William J. Drake
>         > International Fellow & Lecturer
>         >  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>         >  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>         > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>         >  ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
>         > william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>         wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>         >  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>         > ***********************************************
>         >
>         > ____________________________________________________________
>         > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>              http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140922/1d00be60/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Mon Sep 22 03:50:37 2014
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:50:37 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>	<541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>	<D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>	<6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>	<CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com> <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org>
Message-ID: <541FD4CD.5030509@varonferraz.com>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+10000000 for both. Lea and Avri.
and +1 for also figuring out names from "developing countries" as well.
best
joana

On 22-09-2014 04:26, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Great nominations. Both Avri and Lea will be excellent.
> I assume that this discussion on the list will help the Steering
Committee come up with names to give to the Civil Society Steering Group?
>
> But Best Bits should also make sure to have some strong names from
'developing' countries. Also, keep in mind that people nominated from
developed countries would need to have access to funding to attend
meetings of the MAG.  Support for MAG meetings is not easy to get and is
generally only available for people from developing countries. In my
time on the MAG from 2012 to 2014 I think I only received UN support to
attend a MAG meeting on 2 occasions and on one of those the funding did
not include airfare.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 19/09/2014 18:14, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> + 1 for Lea and Avri
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Gene Kimmelman
<genekimmelman at gmail.com <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     +1 for Avri and Lea
>>
>>     On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Adam <ajp at glocom.ac.jp
<mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:05 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>         > +1 on Avri and I’d like to nominate Lea Kaspar of Global
Partners Digital for all the same reasons.
>>         >
>>
>>
>>         Strongly support both Avri and Lea.
>>
>>         Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         > Best
>>         >
>>         > Bill
>>         >
>>         > On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann
<jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> wrote:
>>         >
>>         >> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well
known on this list, very experienced and committed, and certainly
willing and capable to report back. We need good people on the MAG, and
Avri is one of the strongest candidates we can get for this job.
>>         >>
>>         >>
>>         >> jeanette
>>         >>
>>         >> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>>         >>> This is a call for nominations for civil society
representatives for the
>>         >>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>         >>>
>>         >>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across
several civil society
>>         >>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG,
and Just Net
>>         >>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the
above groups.
>>         >>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>         >>>
>>         >>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been
nominated and
>>         >>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>>         >>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>.
>>         >>>
>>         >>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name,
country of
>>         >>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also
specifically address
>>         >>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples
and evidence of
>>         >>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection
criteria.
>>         >>>
>>         >>> CRITERIA
>>         >>>
>>         >>> * Past record of active engagement as part of civil
society groups
>>         >>>   working on internet governance issues, acting or
speaking out
>>         >>>   assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>         >>> * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report
back to CS
>>         >>>   networks (including beyond those focused on internet
governance
>>         >>>   where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>         >>> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>         >>> * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>         >>>   constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>         >>>
>>         >>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also
follow this
>>         >>> process.
>>         >>>
>>         >>>
>>         >>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list
of candidates
>>         >>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>         >>>
>>         >>> --
>>         >>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>         >>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>         >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>         >>> https://eff.org
>>         >>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>         >>>
>>         >>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>         >>>
>>         >>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>         >>>
>>         >>>
>>         >>>
>>         >>> ____________________________________________________________
>>         >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         >>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>         >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>         >>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>         >>>
>>         >> ____________________________________________________________
>>         >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         >>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>         >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>         >>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>         >
>>         > ***********************************************
>>         > William J. Drake
>>         > International Fellow & Lecturer
>>         >  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>         >  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>         > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>         >  ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
>>         > william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
(direct), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>         >  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>>         > ***********************************************
>>         >
>>         > ____________________________________________________________
>>         > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>         > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>         >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>              http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> /Carolina Rossini /
>> /Vice President, International Policy/
>> *Public Knowledge*
>> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> --
> `````````````````````````````````
> anriette esterhuysen
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
> anriette at apc.org
> www.apc.org
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUH9TNAAoJEJIic/+68oBh21gH/RAfeD6VxVbDDBA7iafUlomV
/2jjONs56QW0HonSMvsbmz+8qxzSDC4LiWY6fCzNRJIW7YkP3BhKAvYrQd/7uZ1n
sdP81z7L0s0m9MsFphc6gufLDTUTEfNIIazwM5WPIGbguD4E5860ACeegROVYV9M
qleyles0vwqPsa8GomY+cB/OABL+MyvJ5+VC6gALcqy2fp3/bmwKqt0RnCo6+nDv
zpJ9x0JDSr+VxKyqKi8mQY/3BogmshIhLP1sN3LpKDFtk2ELUbn4ZLsQluFejFAG
z2dojpRKKio2L3VOneS43gDcP0i+hlx7qfKEhxVv+BpSTLkPSYJnA06gorhFdak=
=3rpt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140922/bebd11e1/attachment.htm>

From pimienta at funredes.org  Mon Sep 22 08:24:57 2014
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:24:57 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
  representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
 <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
 <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>
 <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org>
Message-ID: <mailman.131.1642081871.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>


>But Best Bits should also make sure to have some 
>strong names from 'developing' countries. Also, 
>keep in mind that people nominated from 
>developed countries would need to have access to 
>funding to attend meetings of the MAG.  Support 
>for MAG meetings is not easy to get and is 
>generally only available for people from 
>developing countries. In my time on the MAG from 
>2012 to 2014 I think I only received UN support 
>to attend a MAG meeting on 2 occasions and on 
>one of those the funding did not include airfare.
+1000

What Anriette exposes is a fundamental issue of 
true democratic participation in global context 
and her experience is a crude testimony of what 
is really happening behind the nice discourses.

I would say it is not only an issue for Best 
Bits, it should be a key issue for all and every 
IGF and ICANN mechanisms of participation as for 
any global multiskakeholder attempt to reach some 
form of justice... and BTW, the actual global 
economic crisis makes this issue still more acute 
as many (bi or multilateral) support funding have been fading away.
Transparency of the flow of support and the 
associated criteria of selection is also an important part of this issue.

And to react and connect 2 independant threads in the same mail:

>speaking of PrepComs reminds me that they need a 
>Chairman. I have no hesitation in stating that 
>Adama Samassekou is the best suited for this job.Â
Indeed Jean-Louis, Adama would be the perfect 
choice... and he is deeply aware of the first issue.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140922/ae2c7e24/attachment.htm>

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 09:36:28 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:36:28 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Call for nominations for civil
 society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <E1XW1f7-0003Zp-Rr@igcaucus.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
 <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com> <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org> <E1XW1f7-0003Zp-Rr@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7oFxW5+=Rgy=jQt1B5PLXrW5ick+hzLKiusVKdw1qCfw@mail.gmail.com>

I agree completely with Anriette and with Daniel in their concern over
funding. However, it is not only funding (lack of) that can get in the way
of participation, particularly at the physical level. People have lives,
and those lives are often full already of jobs, children, dependent
relatives, the type of minor ill-health that makes travelling a problem, –
even houses and pets, and the intimidation of joining a group where few may
speak your language. This “life baggage”, the list is only of random
examples, encumbers at the virtual level as well, but to a lesser extent.

In taking this perspective which prioritises physical meetings we may be
missing something of great importance. When we speak about this “new
democratic model” powered by the Internet we are talking about the
empowerment that comes from VIRTUAL participation, where anyone with access
can join the debate from anywhere. That is why access must remain at the
top of the priority list, until the majority who lack this empowerment also
share it.

Meanwhile we must be careful not to allow the empowerment to be dissipated
by favouring the physical over the virtual. This is a point that I made at
the BestBits meeting in Istanbul. We need to practise what we preach. Are
we concerned about those who attend meetings virtually as “civil society”?
No – because anyone with access who wishes may attend. Do we attend
meetings when only a “virtual” option is open to us? …

The “other side” in the debate that we are engaged in has the arrangement
of meetings down to a fine art. Meetings are how their world is run.
Physical meetings that is, or meetings run to a “physical meeting” format.
They are not comfortable with the apparent chaos when anyone can speak. The
“physical” environment is much easier to control and manage. It is their
environment after all.

So why do we allow ourselves to be herded and manipulated into their space
to discuss our issues?

Deirdre

On 22 September 2014 08:24, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:

>  But Best Bits should also make sure to have some strong names from
> 'developing' countries. Also, keep in mind that people nominated from
> developed countries would need to have access to funding to attend meetings
> of the MAG.  Support for MAG meetings is not easy to get and is generally
> only available for people from developing countries. In my time on the MAG
> from 2012 to 2014 I think I only received UN support to attend a MAG
> meeting on 2 occasions and on one of those the funding did not include
> airfare.
>
> +1000
>
> What Anriette exposes is a fundamental issue of true democratic
> participation in global context and her experience is a crude testimony of
> what is really happening behind the nice discourses.
>
> I would say it is not only an issue for Best Bits, it should be a key
> issue for all and every IGF and ICANN mechanisms of participation as for
> any global multiskakeholder attempt to reach some form of justice... and
> BTW, the actual global economic crisis makes this issue still more acute as
> many (bi or multilateral) support funding have been fading away.
> Transparency of the flow of support and the associated criteria of
> selection is also an important part of this issue.
>
> And to react and connect 2 independant threads in the same mail:
>
> speaking of PrepComs reminds me that they need a Chairman. I have no
> hesitation in stating that Adama Samassekou is the best suited for this
> job.Â
>
> Indeed Jean-Louis, Adama would be the perfect choice... and he is deeply
> aware of the first issue.
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140922/ebdd1ae7/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Mon Sep  1 05:36:27 2014
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:36:27 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com> <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org> <5404308C.5030302@apc.org> <2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org>
Message-ID: <54043E1B.5090009@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/08dd31c6/attachment.htm>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 10:06:27 2014
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:06:27 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Call for nominations for civil
 society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7oFxW5+=Rgy=jQt1B5PLXrW5ick+hzLKiusVKdw1qCfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
 <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com> <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org> <E1XW1f7-0003Zp-Rr@igcaucus.org> <CAMz5XN7oFxW5+=Rgy=jQt1B5PLXrW5ick+hzLKiusVKdw1qCfw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxi9rdaTqsNAwDBJtLAx9yXt=5ciR1+S5rxrF59gx-S8uQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Deirdre Williams
<williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

<stuf I agree with you about snipped>


> The “other side” in the debate that we are engaged in has the arrangement of
> meetings down to a fine art. Meetings are how their world is run. Physical
> meetings that is, or meetings run to a “physical meeting” format. They are
> not comfortable with the apparent chaos when anyone can speak. The
> “physical” environment is much easier to control and manage. It is their
> environment after all.


Who is the "other side" in your opinion?

rgds,

McTim

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Mon Sep 22 11:32:43 2014
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:32:43 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Call for nominations for civil
 society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7oFxW5+=Rgy=jQt1B5PLXrW5ick+hzLKiusVKdw1qCfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu> <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com> <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp> <CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com> <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org> <E1XW1f7-0003Zp-Rr@igcaucus.org> <CAMz5XN7oFxW5+=Rgy=jQt1B5PLXrW5ick+hzLKiusVKdw1qCfw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5420411B.4040905@softwarefreedom.org>

On 09/22/2014 09:36 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>
> I agree completely with Anriette and with Daniel in their concern over
> funding. However, it is not only funding (lack of) that can get in the
> way of participation, particularly at the physical level. People have
> lives, and those lives are often full already of jobs, children,
> dependent relatives, the type of minor ill-health that makes
> travelling a problem, – even houses and pets, and the intimidation of
> joining a group where few may speak your language. This “life
> baggage”, the list is only of random examples, encumbers at the
> virtual level as well, but to a lesser extent.
>
> In taking this perspective which prioritises physical meetings we may
> be missing something of great importance. When we speak about this
> “new democratic model” powered by the Internet we are talking about
> the empowerment that comes from VIRTUAL participation, where anyone
> with access can join the debate from anywhere. That is why access must
> remain at the top of the priority list, until the majority who lack
> this empowerment also share it.
>
> Meanwhile we must be careful not to allow the empowerment to be
> dissipated by favouring the physical over the virtual. This is a point
> that I made at the BestBits meeting in Istanbul. We need to practise
> what we preach. Are we concerned about those who attend meetings
> virtually as “civil society”? No – because anyone with access who
> wishes may attend. Do we attend meetings when only a “virtual” option
> is open to us? …
>
> The “other side” in the debate that we are engaged in has the
> arrangement of meetings down to a fine art. Meetings are how their
> world is run. Physical meetings that is, or meetings run to a
> “physical meeting” format. They are not comfortable with the apparent
> chaos when anyone can speak. The “physical” environment is much easier
> to control and manage. It is their environment after all.
>
> So why do we allow ourselves to be herded and manipulated into their
> space to discuss our issues?
>
> Deirdre
>


I support all the issues that Deirdre raises and would benefit immensely
from hearing about solutions for the problems she presents.
>
> On 22 September 2014 08:24, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org
> <mailto:pimienta at funredes.org>> wrote:
>
>>     But Best Bits should also make sure to have some strong names
>>     from 'developing' countries. Also, keep in mind that people
>>     nominated from developed countries would need to have access to
>>     funding to attend meetings of the MAG.  Support for MAG meetings
>>     is not easy to get and is generally only available for people
>>     from developing countries. In my time on the MAG from 2012 to
>>     2014 I think I only received UN support to attend a MAG meeting
>>     on 2 occasions and on one of those the funding did not include
>>     airfare.
>     +1000
>
>     What Anriette exposes is a fundamental issue of true democratic
>     participation in global context and her experience is a crude
>     testimony of what is really happening behind the nice discourses.
>
>     I would say it is not only an issue for Best Bits, it should be a
>     key issue for all and every IGF and ICANN mechanisms of
>     participation as for any global multiskakeholder attempt to reach
>     some form of justice... and BTW, the actual global economic crisis
>     makes this issue still more acute as many (bi or multilateral)
>     support funding have been fading away.
>     Transparency of the flow of support and the associated criteria of
>     selection is also an important part of this issue.
>
>     And to react and connect 2 independant threads in the same mail:
>
>>     speaking of PrepComs reminds me that they need a Chairman. I have
>>     no hesitation in stating that Adama Samassekou is the best suited
>>     for this job.  
>     Indeed Jean-Louis, Adama would be the perfect choice... and he is
>     deeply aware of the first issue.
>
>     -- 
>     This message has been scanned for viruses and
>     dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
>     and is
>     believed to be clean.
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org


Executive Director 
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126 
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140922/f15fa0ed/attachment.htm>

From tesstaff.5551 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 08:07:59 2014
From: tesstaff.5551 at gmail.com (Teresa Tafida)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:07:59 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
Message-ID: <551E400D-513B-4693-A470-32262DBF6B53@gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy


I wish to submit the following nomination
Name: John Dada
Country of residence: Nigeria
Nationality: Nigerian
Gender: Male

John Dada is the CEO of Fantsuam Foundation, www.fantsuam.net, in Nigeria. He has been an internet rights activist with special passion for underserved and unserved communities of rural Nigeria. He was the Chair of an APC-sponsored Broadband for Nigeria process that developed a draft framework for the country. He serves on the Executive Board of Association for Progressive Communications and is on the Working Group of the Nigerian Internet Freedom Bill. He has attended previous IGFs including the most recent at Instanbul where he was active in the Dynamic Coalition on Access and Disability. 

John brings with him a wealth of experience from the developing world perspective



On 18 Sep 2014, at 20:21, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).  
> 
> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
> 
> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to jmalcolm at eff.org. 
> 
> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
> 
> CRITERIA
> Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
> Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
> Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
> Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations.
> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this process.
> 
> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140922/718d2ed1/attachment.htm>

From pimienta at funredes.org  Mon Sep 22 15:12:57 2014
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:12:57 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Call for nominations for civil
  society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group  (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <5420411B.4040905@softwarefreedom.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
 <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
 <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>
 <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>
 <CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org>
 <E1XW1f7-0003Zp-Rr@igcaucus.org>
 <CAMz5XN7oFxW5+=Rgy=jQt1B5PLXrW5ick+hzLKiusVKdw1qCfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5420411B.4040905@softwarefreedom.org>
Message-ID: <mailman.132.1642081871.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>


>I support all the issues that Deirdre raises and 
>would benefit immensely from hearing about 
>solutions for the problems she presents.

Mishi,

Back, beetween 2000 and 2005, we have been (quite 
succesfully I would say from the many 
evaluations) experimenting methodologies for what 
we called "Distance Participation" in the project 
MISTICA (Methodologies and Social Impact of ICT 
in Latin America - http://funredes.org/mistica ) 
and at the same time we were also experimenting 
with imbedding translation into virtual community 
communication (to solve the second barreer for 
participation after distance which is language). 
MISTICA was not multistakeholder by design (it 
was centered on civil society) but indeed have 
make some interesting contributions to democratic 
process in virtual spaces which could apply to multi-stakeholder communities.

The following paper (which by the way was 
translated from Spanish by Deirdre :-)) could 
give some insights to the whole process:
<http://funredes.org/mistica/english/cyberlibrary/thematic/icie/>At 
the Boundaries of Ethics and 
Cultures<http://funredes.org/mistica/english/cyberlibrary/thematic/icie/> 
: Virtual Communities as an Open Ended Process 
Carrying the Will for Social Change (the "MISTICA" experience) .

The method had nothing to do with the use of 
synchronous resources for broadcasting the 
meeting; it was, by design, an asynchronous 
management based on the following axiom:
even if a virtual community organize a face to 
face meeting the center of gravity of the community remains virtual.
The whole design of the meeting was made with 
that principle in mind, e.g. not allowing 
decisions be made by the lucky minority in face 
to face encounters but keeping a whole community 
process for decision making. This way of 
processing trigger many interesting consequences 
which warrant due and democratic processes and, I 
would say, provoke a radical change in the way 
face to face participants perceive their own participation.

This obviously requires to think the design of 
the meeting differently, organizing delayed 
interactions after meeting sections, but that 
will keep face to face participants in sync with 
the community and allow sometime some interesting 
situation when a face to face participant can 
also interact by the virtual asynchronius channel.

The same type of methodologies were also 
experimented at the same time by colleagues 
working for Fondation pour le Progrès de 
l'Humanité in order to manage the Alliance for a 
Responsible, Plureal and United World 
(http://www.alliance21.org). The French article 
on Wikipedia does refer to Distance Participation 
(see 
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_pour_un_monde_responsable,_pluriel_et_solidaire).

If people are interested I coud offer more details off the list.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140922/a79834c0/attachment.htm>

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 17:28:44 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 02:58:44 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
	<541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0G4cRwcrV6yVHkMz4oDk-wNk_BXAx=yu7qe0omwDu44hA@mail.gmail.com>

+1

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>


On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this list,
> very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable to report
> back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the strongest
> candidates we can get for this job.
>
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>
>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>
>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>
>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>
>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>>
>> CRITERIA
>>
>>   * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>     working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>>     assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>   * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>     networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>>     where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>   * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>   * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>     constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>
>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>> process.
>>
>>
>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140923/a046c359/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 18:16:09 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:16:09 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Call for nominations for civil
  society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group  (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <20140922181406.0C7B3807A9@bestbits.net>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu> <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com> <6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp> <CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com> <541FCF09.4040708@apc.org> <E1XW1f7-0003Zp-Rr@igcaucus.org> <CAMz5XN7oFxW5+=Rgy=jQt1B5PLXrW5ick+hzLKiusVKdw1qCfw@mail.gmail.com> <5420411B.4040905@softwarefreedom.org> <20140922181406.0C7B3807A9@bestbits.net>
Message-ID: <037901cfd6b2$d23cdac0$76b69040$@gmail.com>

Coming in late to this discussion I want to support Daniel (and Deidre’s)
comments but also add that restricting funding support to those from LDC’s
is highly discriminatory on several levels.  While agreeing that
extraordinary efforts should be made to ensure as wide a diversity of
opinions as possible and that the inclusion of those from LDC’s needs to be
a funding priority given the overall absence of available local resources
for participation in these activities there is within this position the
assumption that those from the Developed Countries will themselves have
access to resources for participation.

 

While this is certainly true in many instances it is generally true only for
those with close affiliations of some sort to one or another of the major
institutional sources of funding—universities, major NGO’s, major donors,
more recently ICANN etc.  Of course, not all suitable and desirable
participants from DC’s will have such affiliations and it is at least
arguable that those with the most independent and critical perspectives are
those least likely to have such access to resources or to feel constrained
in their positions if they were to accept support from certain available
sources.

 

My feeling is that an appropriate funding formula would be based on overall
likelihood of effective and useful contribution where issues of
geographical, gender, and normative diversity are all equally included as
criteria.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Pimienta
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:13 AM
To: Best Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Call for nominations for civil
society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)

 

I support all the issues that Deirdre raises and would benefit immensely
from hearing about solutions for the problems she presents.


Mishi,

Back, beetween 2000 and 2005, we have been (quite succesfully I would say
from the many evaluations) experimenting methodologies for what we called
"Distance Participation" in the project MISTICA (Methodologies and Social
Impact of ICT in Latin America - http://funredes.org/mistica ) and at the
same time we were also experimenting with imbedding translation into virtual
community communication (to solve the second barreer for participation after
distance which is language). MISTICA was not multistakeholder by design (it
was centered on civil society) but indeed have make some interesting
contributions to democratic process in virtual spaces which could apply to
multi-stakeholder communities.

The following paper (which by the way was translated from Spanish by Deirdre
:-)) could give some insights to the whole process:
At the Boundaries of Ethics and Cultures
<http://funredes.org/mistica/english/cyberlibrary/thematic/icie/>  : Virtual
Communities as an Open Ended Process Carrying the Will for Social Change
(the  <http://funredes.org/mistica/english/cyberlibrary/thematic/icie/>
"MISTICA" experience) .

The method had nothing to do with the use of synchronous resources for
broadcasting the meeting; it was, by design, an asynchronous management
based on the following axiom:
even if a virtual community organize a face to face meeting the center of
gravity of the community remains virtual.
The whole design of the meeting was made with that principle in mind, e.g.
not allowing decisions be made by the lucky minority in face to face
encounters but keeping a whole community process for decision making. This
way of processing trigger many interesting consequences which warrant due
and democratic processes and, I would say, provoke a radical change in the
way face to face participants perceive their own participation.

This obviously requires to think the design of the meeting differently,
organizing delayed interactions after meeting sections, but that will keep
face to face participants in sync with the community and allow sometime some
interesting situation when a face to face participant can also interact by
the virtual asynchronius channel.

The same type of methodologies were also experimented at the same time by
colleagues working for Fondation pour le Progrès de l'Humanité in order to
manage the Alliance for a Responsible, Plureal and United World (
http://www.alliance21.org <http://www.alliance21.org/> ). The French article
on Wikipedia does refer to Distance Participation (see
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_pour_un_monde_responsable,_pluriel_et_
solidaire ).

If people are interested I coud offer more details off the list.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140923/8b631175/attachment.htm>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 22:49:06 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 03:49:06 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <551E400D-513B-4693-A470-32262DBF6B53@gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
	<551E400D-513B-4693-A470-32262DBF6B53@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6irY1tGPYo+Utp8C5BoOHMxdr1Fjidk=W5iai4me=55Uw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

This is to indicate my support for John Dada.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 22 Sep 2014 17:10, "Teresa Tafida" <tesstaff.5551 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Jeremy
>
>
> I wish to submit the following nomination
> Name: John Dada
> Country of residence: Nigeria
> Nationality: Nigerian
> Gender: Male
>
> John Dada is the CEO of Fantsuam Foundation, www.fantsuam.net, in
> Nigeria. He has been an internet rights activist with special passion for
> underserved and unserved communities of rural Nigeria. He was the Chair of
> an APC-sponsored Broadband for Nigeria process that developed a draft
> framework for the country. He serves on the Executive Board of Association
> for Progressive Communications and is on the Working Group of the Nigerian
> Internet Freedom Bill. He has attended previous IGFs including the most
> recent at Instanbul where he was active in the Dynamic Coalition on Access
> and Disability.
>
> John brings with him a wealth of experience from the developing world
> perspective
>
>
>
> On 18 Sep 2014, at 20:21, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
>  This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>
> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>
> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and wish
> to accept, please do so either on list or by email to jmalcolm at eff.org.
>
> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>
> CRITERIA
>
>    - Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>    working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively
>    on behalf of public interest concerns.
>    - Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>    networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where
>    appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>    - Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>    - Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>    constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>
> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
> process.
>
>
> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>
>  --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140923/d7b9a681/attachment.htm>

From gabriel at isoc-gauteng.org.za  Tue Sep 23 04:58:15 2014
From: gabriel at isoc-gauteng.org.za (Gabriel Ramokotjo)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:58:15 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6irY1tGPYo+Utp8C5BoOHMxdr1Fjidk=W5iai4me=55Uw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
	<551E400D-513B-4693-A470-32262DBF6B53@gmail.com>
	<CAD_dc6irY1tGPYo+Utp8C5BoOHMxdr1Fjidk=W5iai4me=55Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACuy080mTOHa7dio3hy3i9ugCraT8gJD0ueomO_v+ivdxrnmCQ@mail.gmail.com>

Would also like to add my support for John Dada.

Regards

G.M Ramokotjo
On Sep 23, 2014 4:49 AM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This is to indicate my support for John Dada.
>
> Regards
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 22 Sep 2014 17:10, "Teresa Tafida" <tesstaff.5551 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jeremy
>>
>>
>> I wish to submit the following nomination
>> Name: John Dada
>> Country of residence: Nigeria
>> Nationality: Nigerian
>> Gender: Male
>>
>> John Dada is the CEO of Fantsuam Foundation, www.fantsuam.net, in
>> Nigeria. He has been an internet rights activist with special passion for
>> underserved and unserved communities of rural Nigeria. He was the Chair of
>> an APC-sponsored Broadband for Nigeria process that developed a draft
>> framework for the country. He serves on the Executive Board of Association
>> for Progressive Communications and is on the Working Group of the Nigerian
>> Internet Freedom Bill. He has attended previous IGFs including the most
>> recent at Instanbul where he was active in the Dynamic Coalition on Access
>> and Disability.
>>
>> John brings with him a wealth of experience from the developing world
>> perspective
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2014, at 20:21, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>>  This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for
>> the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>
>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>
>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>
>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>>
>> CRITERIA
>>
>>    - Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>    working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively
>>    on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>    - Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>    networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where
>>    appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>    - Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>    - Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>    constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>
>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>> process.
>>
>>
>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>
>>  --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140923/b76b8965/attachment.htm>

From stefania.milan at utoronto.ca  Tue Sep 23 06:59:42 2014
From: stefania.milan at utoronto.ca (Stefania Milan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:59:42 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] food for thought: conflict or participation or both?
In-Reply-To: <CACuy080mTOHa7dio3hy3i9ugCraT8gJD0ueomO_v+ivdxrnmCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <551E400D-513B-4693-A470-32262DBF6B53@gmail.com> <CAD_dc6irY1tGPYo+Utp8C5BoOHMxdr1Fjidk=W5iai4me=55Uw@mail.gmail.com> <CACuy080mTOHa7dio3hy3i9ugCraT8gJD0ueomO_v+ivdxrnmCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <94DBC944-B3B3-4FF6-A0A5-770ADB5DB3EB@utoronto.ca>

Dear BestBits-ers
we would like to share with the community a short blog post entitled "In Multistakeholderism We Trust: On the Limits of the Multistakeholder Debate" [1], in which Arne Hintz and myself ask whether multistakeholderism has become a mantra, void of its progressive potential and outcomes, and argue for more conflict within the global IG debate. Among other things, we call for strengthening spaces like Best Bits, whose autonomy from specific policy processes/arenas and IG organizations can be crucial for the articulation of civil society's wish list and strategies. Just some food for thought...
Best, Stefania (and Arne)

[1] http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/in-multistakeholderism-we-trust-on-the-limits-of-the-multistakeholder-debate/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140923/f0882149/attachment.sig>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 08:56:19 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:56:19 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: FW: new DIRSI report on Internet and poverty
In-Reply-To: <5c5fe5a66d24e0ae0802441a751a511f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9d59eb1318d6b59d45100b35c466dffd@mail.gmail.com>
	<5c5fe5a66d24e0ae0802441a751a511f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAetxSH=Q-msHNSKaWzmQ9JxR4qFp-ssJLNqUAJWLJwQ-Q@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Hernan Galperin" <hgalperin at udesa.edu.ar>
Date: Sep 23, 2014 8:34 AM
Subject: FW: new DIRSI report on Internet and poverty
To: "Hernan Galperin" <hgalperin at udesa.edu.ar>
Cc:

Dear colleagues,



We have recently launched a major research report examining the links
between broadband adoption and poverty in Latin America. The summary and
links are below. Please disseminate among other colleagues who might also
be interested.



Best,



Hernan Galperin

DIRSI/Universidad de San Andrés




















The Internet and Poverty:
*Opening the Black Box*

Study in Latin America shows that Internet connectivity can help alleviate
poverty, but that complementary investments in human capital are needed to
realize the full potential of broadband





A study undertaken by Diálogo Regional sobre la Sociedad de la Información
(DIRSI), a regional ICT policy network funded by the International
Development Research Centre (IDRC-Canada), found that that the impact of
broadband access on economic development is positive but more modest than
previously estimated – as much as five times lower than the more optimistic
estimations. Further, the study found that connecting schools to the
Internet has a very modest impact on student performance in the short-term.
According to the study’s conclusions, “the Internet, like other ICTs, can
be a powerful tool to achieve many development goals, including poverty
alleviation, but this potential will not be realized unless human capital
investments are properly articulated with connectivity initiatives”. The
study used large household and school-based surveys as well as personal
interviews to explore the links between broadband adoption and income,
employment and educational achievement in Ecuador, Colombia, Chile, Brazil,
Peru and Mexico.





*READ MORE HERE >>
<http://www2.smartmail.com.ar/tl.php?p=hqf/f94/rs/1fp/4c0/rs//http%3A%2F%2Fdirsi.net%2Fweb%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2FOpening_the_Black_Box.pdf>*










The Internet and Poverty: Opening the Black Box summarizes the findings
from a set of case studies, offering new research directions as well as
policy recommendations. Full-length versions of the individual case studies
containing detailed discussions about methodology and results can be found
in the following links:














*Economic Impact of broadband deployment in EcuadorREAD MORE HERE >>
<http://dirsi.net/web/web/en/publicaciones/detalle/economic-impact-of-broadband-deployment-in-ecuador>Internet
and economic activity in Colombia, 2007-2011: an analysis of municipalities
and 23 main citiesREAD MORE HERE >>
<http://dirsi.net/web/web/en/publicaciones/detalle/internet-and-economic-activity-in-colombia--2007-2011--an-analysis-of-municipalities-and-23-main-cities>Do
broadband and information and communication technologies (ICTS) have a
positive impact on school performance? Evidence for ChileREAD MORE HERE >>
<http://dirsi.net/web/web/en/publicaciones/detalle/do-broadband-and-information-and-communication-technologies--icts--have-a-positive-impact-on-school-performances-evidence-for-chile>Internet
in schools. The effect on educational performance in Peru: 2007-2011READ
MORE HERE >>
<http://dirsi.net/web/web/en/publicaciones/detalle/internet-in-schools--the-effect-on-educational-performance-peru--2007-2011>The
informational life of the marginalized: a study of digital access in three
Mexican townsREAD MORE HERE >>
<http://dirsi.net/web/web/en/publicaciones/detalle/the-informational-life-of-the-marginalized--a-study-of-digital-access-in-three-mexican-towns>*






Other highlights of the study are:





In Ecuador, broadband availability is associated with a rise in labor
incomes of up to 7.5% over a two-year period, though men appear to benefit
more than women.
In Colombia, broadband appears to have a positive impact on
entrepreneurship, with a 10% increase in broadband associated with a 4%
increase in the number of firms (though only a 0.4% increase in tax
revenues).

In Brazil, Chile and Peru, broadband in schools appears to have a mixed
effect, with a positive impact on drop-out rates but a null or negative
effect on test scores. Lack of adequate teacher training is linked to a
negative impact on student achievement by diverting the use of broadband to
non-educational activities. Yet students from lower-income households tend
to benefit relatively more from broadband in schools programs.

In Mexico, in-depth interviews in low-income communities corroborate the
key role of infomediaries, particularly school-age children, in promoting
adoption among other household members. Such spillover effects should also
be considered in the planning and evaluation of ICT-in-schools programs.











Overall, the study calls for caution in undertaking large public
investments in broadband connectivity. Any such initiatives must go
hand-in-hand with investments in human capital, such as teacher training
and digital literacy programs for women, in order to maximize impact and
promote equity in the appropriation of benefits.










Learn more about

DIRSI
<http://www2.smartmail.com.ar/tl.php?p=hqf/f94/rs/1fp/4c0/rs//http%3A%2F%2Fdirsi.net%2Fweb%2F>

The book The Information Lives of the Poor: Fighting Poverty with Technology
<http://www2.smartmail.com.ar/tl.php?p=hqf/f94/rs/1fp/4c0/rs//http%3A%2F%2Fwww.idrc.ca%2FEN%2FResources%2FPublications%2FPages%2FArticleDetails.aspx%3FPublicationID%3D1250>
which contains some ground-breaking research findings on how technologies
like broadband are transforming the lives of the poor in Latin America,
Africa, and Asia. IDRC’s Information and Networks program

IDRC’s Information and Networks
<http://www2.smartmail.com.ar/tl.php?p=hqf/f94/rs/1fp/4c0/rs//http%3A%2F%2Fwww.idrc.ca%2FEN%2FPrograms%2FScience_and_Innovation%2FInformation_and_Networks%2FPages%2Fdefault.aspx>
program





 <http://www.udesa.edu.ar/Graduados/Eventos?eid=6639&er=1>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140923/6bda46fe/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Mon Sep  1 05:36:48 2014
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:36:48 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com> <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org> <5404308C.5030302@apc.org> <2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org>
Message-ID: <54043E30.8040809@cdt.org>

I support Jeremy's point on two statements - particularly if the one on 
a permanent mandate is multi-stakeholder.

On 9/1/2014 12:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:38 AM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi - I agree with the idea of a joint statement making the IGF permanent
>> However, I would point out that yesterday at the Best Bits meeting we 
>> agreed to make a statement saying more than just that the IGF should 
>> be made permanent - we also were to preparea a statement on other 
>> issues and a smaller group had started notes on these during the 
>> meeting on the meeting etherpad 
>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y at lines 330-339
>> These still need more work -  a small group volunteered to work on 
>> developing these into a statement that would be sent to this list for 
>> comment and a call for support (myself, Dixie, Jeremy, Carolina - 
>> maybe one or two others?)
>
> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the 
> permanent mandate of the IGF, but I'm not sure whether people realised 
> they would be supporting a broader statement covering other points 
> (such as "concern at the number of new processes", which seems 
> contentious to me, although I personally agree with it).  Can we have 
> two separate outputs?  ie. I think there would be value in issuing a 
> consensus statement on the renewal of the IGF, and putting the other 
> paragraphs into an optional sign-on statement if they are more 
> contentious and might detract from the unanimity of the message about 
> extension of the IGF.
>
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/2b90647b/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Tue Sep 23 15:07:34 2014
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:07:34 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <541FD4CD.5030509@varonferraz.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
	<541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
	<D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>
	<6E97DECB-2A94-4AD8-ABC3-37387304230D@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CA+4KnA_vQEHx0Ks4CBXPbJR=Z9GEYjaYKiBo2uc6xmAgXPOBgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-FJAe5-9NApZqJ9Ze270J=2==foD=rhKxfNT5sAcZ2_FSFPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<541FCF09.4040708@apc.org>
	<541FD4CD.5030509@varonferraz.com>
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjwdKOEkLZ1FeEOqHakK4DZw02AYkK8m=eby=Qqyh1ytrw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

First of all, thank you Bill for putting my name forward and many thanks
for all the endorsements - I happily accept and plan to send a background
text to support my nomination shortly.

Regardless of how my nomination progresses, I hope we get to see a more
dynamic, representative and organised civil society engagement in the MAG
going forward.

Lastly, I'd like to add my endorsement for Avri's nomination.

Good luck to all the candidates!

*Lea Kaspar*

Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +10000000 for both. Lea and Avri.
> and +1 for also figuring out names from "developing countries" as well.
> best
> joana
>
> On 22-09-2014 04:26, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> > Great nominations. Both Avri and Lea will be excellent.
> > I assume that this discussion on the list will help the Steering
> Committee come up with names to give to the Civil Society Steering Group?
> >
> > But Best Bits should also make sure to have some strong names from
> 'developing' countries. Also, keep in mind that people nominated from
> developed countries would need to have access to funding to attend meetings
> of the MAG.  Support for MAG meetings is not easy to get and is generally
> only available for people from developing countries. In my time on the MAG
> from 2012 to 2014 I think I only received UN support to attend a MAG
> meeting on 2 occasions and on one of those the funding did not include
> airfare.
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> >
> > On 19/09/2014 18:14, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> >> + 1 for Lea and Avri
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Gene Kimmelman <
> genekimmelman at gmail.com <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> <genekimmelman at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     +1 for Avri and Lea
> >>
> >>     On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Adam <ajp at glocom.ac.jp
> <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp> <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>         On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:05 PM, William Drake wrote:
> >>
> >>         > +1 on Avri and I’d like to nominate Lea Kaspar of Global
> Partners Digital for all the same reasons.
> >>         >
> >>
> >>
> >>         Strongly support both Avri and Lea.
> >>
> >>         Adam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>         > Best
> >>         >
> >>         > Bill
> >>         >
> >>         > On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <
> jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu> <jeanette at wzb.eu>> wrote:
> >>         >
> >>         >> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known
> on this list, very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and
> capable to report back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of
> the strongest candidates we can get for this job.
> >>         >>
> >>         >>
> >>         >> jeanette
> >>         >>
> >>         >> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
> >>         >>> This is a call for nominations for civil society
> representatives for the
> >>         >>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several
> civil society
> >>         >>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and
> Just Net
> >>         >>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the
> above groups.
> >>         >>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been
> nominated and
> >>         >>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
> >>         >>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
> <jmalcolm at eff.org>.
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name,
> country of
> >>         >>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also
> specifically address
> >>         >>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples
> and evidence of
> >>         >>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection
> criteria.
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> CRITERIA
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society
> groups
> >>         >>>   working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking
> out
> >>         >>>   assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
> >>         >>> * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report
> back to CS
> >>         >>>   networks (including beyond those focused on internet
> governance
> >>         >>>   where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
> >>         >>> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
> >>         >>> * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
> >>         >>>   constructively in the MAG deliberations.
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also
> follow this
> >>         >>> process.
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list
> of candidates
> >>         >>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> --
> >>         >>> Jeremy Malcolm
> >>         >>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> >>         >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> >>         >>> https://eff.org
> >>         >>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
> <jmalcolm at eff.org>
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>>
> >>         >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>         >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>         >>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> >>         >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>         >>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>         >>>
> >>         >> ____________________________________________________________
> >>         >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>         >>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> >>         >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>         >>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>         >
> >>         > ***********************************************
> >>         > William J. Drake
> >>         > International Fellow & Lecturer
> >>         >  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> >>         >  University of Zurich, Switzerland
> >>         > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> >>         >  ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> <http://www.ncuc.org>
> >>         > william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
> <william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> <wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> >>         >  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> >>         > ***********************************************
> >>         >
> >>         > ____________________________________________________________
> >>         > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>         >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> >>         > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>         >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>
> >>
> >>         ____________________________________________________________
> >>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> >>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>              http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     ____________________________________________________________
> >>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> >>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> /Carolina Rossini /
> >> /Vice President, International Policy/
> >> *Public Knowledge*
> >> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> >> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> > --
> > `````````````````````````````````
> > anriette esterhuysen
> > executive director
> > association for progressive communications
> > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
> > anriette at apc.org
> > www.apc.org
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUH9TNAAoJEJIic/+68oBh21gH/RAfeD6VxVbDDBA7iafUlomV
> /2jjONs56QW0HonSMvsbmz+8qxzSDC4LiWY6fCzNRJIW7YkP3BhKAvYrQd/7uZ1n
> sdP81z7L0s0m9MsFphc6gufLDTUTEfNIIazwM5WPIGbguD4E5860ACeegROVYV9M
> qleyles0vwqPsa8GomY+cB/OABL+MyvJ5+VC6gALcqy2fp3/bmwKqt0RnCo6+nDv
> zpJ9x0JDSr+VxKyqKi8mQY/3BogmshIhLP1sN3LpKDFtk2ELUbn4ZLsQluFejFAG
> z2dojpRKKio2L3VOneS43gDcP0i+hlx7qfKEhxVv+BpSTLkPSYJnA06gorhFdak=
> =3rpt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140923/2c03680b/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Tue Sep 23 15:15:35 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:15:35 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST WED: Venezuela Encuentro de Gobernanza de
 Internet (Internet Governance Meeting)
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk29gQb5B_PZAKXDBNaaQPUz_=FnDSoBL=c=WrUoSQpPPA@mail.gmail.com>

Ok! Here's one for the habla espanol posse! Congrats to ISOC VE on mounting
a great event - an IGF in all but name.


 joly posted: "On Wednesday 24 September 2014 the Internet Society's
Venezuela Chapter will present the Encuentro de Gobernanza de Internet
(Internet Governance Meeting), a full day forum intended to serve as a link
between those who have interest and responsibilities r"


[image: EGI] <http://www.egi.org.ve/>On *Wednesday 24 September 2014*
the *Internet
Society's Venezuela Chapter* <http://www.isocvenezuela.org/> will present
the *Encuentro de Gobernanza de Internet <http://www.egi.org.ve/>*
(Internet Governance Meeting), a full day forum intended to serve as a link
between those who have interest and responsibilities related to the
evolution of Internet, its development and impact. Participation of all
sectors are involved so that all perspectives are included. *The program
will be in Spanish* and webcast *live via YouTube*. Caracas is UTC-4.5,
thus 30 mins behind NYC.

*What*: Encuentro de Gobernanza de Internet <http://www.egi.org.ve/>
(Internet Governance Meeting)
*Where*: Faculty of Science UCV, Caracas, Venezuela
*When*: Wednesday 24 September 2014 8.30am-5.30pm VET | 1300-2200 UTC |
0900-1800 EDT
*Agenda*: http://www.egi.org.ve/#schedule
*Webcast*: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU5mnk_gmxU
*Twitter*: #EGI2014
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/egi2014?f=realtime&src=hash>


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7027#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7027#comments>





*Permalink*
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7027









-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140923/d9ef1b0d/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Sep 23 16:28:54 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:28:54 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] food for thought: conflict or participation or both?
In-Reply-To: <94DBC944-B3B3-4FF6-A0A5-770ADB5DB3EB@utoronto.ca>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <551E400D-513B-4693-A470-32262DBF6B53@gmail.com> <CAD_dc6irY1tGPYo+Utp8C5BoOHMxdr1Fjidk=W5iai4me=55Uw@mail.gmail.com> <CACuy080mTOHa7dio3hy3i9ugCraT8gJD0ueomO_v+ivdxrnmCQ@mail.gmail.com> <94DBC944-B3B3-4FF6-A0A5-770ADB5DB3EB@utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CC163DA38C9549A48B29425D4D7DD451@Toshiba>

Great paper - well worth reading! My first takeaway -

"We may wonder whether what is needed is more multistakeholder compromise or 
rather a clearer agenda of how civil society envisions the further 
development of the internet, a better idea of how to achieve it, and a 
position of strength that supports this vision."

http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/in-multistakeholderism-we-trust-on-the-limits-of-the-multistakeholder-debate/



-----Original Message----- 
From: Stefania Milan
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:59 PM
To: Best Bits List
Cc: arne hintz
Subject: [bestbits] food for thought: conflict or participation or both?


From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Wed Sep 24 05:05:45 2014
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:05:45 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <CACuy080mTOHa7dio3hy3i9ugCraT8gJD0ueomO_v+ivdxrnmCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>	<551E400D-513B-4693-A470-32262DBF6B53@gmail.com>	<CAD_dc6irY1tGPYo+Utp8C5BoOHMxdr1Fjidk=W5iai4me=55Uw@mail.gmail.com> <CACuy080mTOHa7dio3hy3i9ugCraT8gJD0ueomO_v+ivdxrnmCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54228969.9040506@digitaldissidents.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1 for Lea and Avri
+1 for more voices for more candidates (+ support) from developing
countries

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 09/23/2014 09:58 AM, Gabriel Ramokotjo wrote:
> Would also like to add my support for John Dada.
> 
> Regards
> 
> G.M Ramokotjo On Sep 23, 2014 4:49 AM, "Seun Ojedeji"
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> This is to indicate my support for John Dada.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22
>> Sep 2014 17:10, "Teresa Tafida" <tesstaff.5551 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Jeremy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I wish to submit the following nomination Name: John Dada 
>>> Country of residence: Nigeria Nationality: Nigerian Gender:
>>> Male
>>> 
>>> John Dada is the CEO of Fantsuam Foundation, www.fantsuam.net,
>>> in Nigeria. He has been an internet rights activist with
>>> special passion for underserved and unserved communities of
>>> rural Nigeria. He was the Chair of an APC-sponsored Broadband
>>> for Nigeria process that developed a draft framework for the
>>> country. He serves on the Executive Board of Association for
>>> Progressive Communications and is on the Working Group of the
>>> Nigerian Internet Freedom Bill. He has attended previous IGFs
>>> including the most recent at Instanbul where he was active in
>>> the Dynamic Coalition on Access and Disability.
>>> 
>>> John brings with him a wealth of experience from the developing
>>> world perspective
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 18 Sep 2014, at 20:21, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is a call for nominations for civil society
>>> representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group
>>> (MAG).
>>> 
>>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several
>>> civil society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo,
>>> NCSG, and Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate
>>> through any of the above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday,
>>> September 30
>>> 
>>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been
>>> nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on list or by
>>> email to jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>> 
>>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country
>>> of residence and nationality, and gender. Please also
>>> specifically address each of the selection criteria below,
>>> giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee meets each
>>> of the individual selection criteria.
>>> 
>>> CRITERIA
>>> 
>>> - Past record of active engagement as part of civil society
>>> groups working on internet governance issues, acting or
>>> speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest
>>> concerns. - Willingness and commitment to consult with and
>>> report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on
>>> internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. -
>>> Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. -
>>> Willing, available and able to participate effectively and 
>>> constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>> 
>>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also
>>> follow this process.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of
>>> candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than
>>> October 16.
>>> 
>>> -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic
>>> Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org
>>> 
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>> 
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________ 
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUIolpAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpWg0IAJMlAkwiHLG9u4fSLPKyUM59
SDm0INah+GRuuCnPpx6iTjdnjBa5+OqI5Xcd6VS5rcZDfN9n/FciUl3QeD4X7rRN
BLdS7rhIyXj+CynQQ16cozh51wwQi71L/5We8Yjpg+4wLhRXdJoiwsSUsV8z286j
Rel5M4m3GbeyNAA8IzuwzAirfZRYywdupEyPAxvE9j9d0vqCx/ixkA7kbtJuGs9w
HjueLXdrXQ5VEgK4oNGGsW/9N6WKI2poC2fFweVmq0W4DiN3Nm2n52S06VkQATAS
pS4xkTS7T2M7NC54NgPXFL9yufp0qpq01CjrO648OuUkcP6JEsDNr2cQ7Y8bS+0=
=ExFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Wed Sep 24 18:57:24 2014
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:57:24 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <DUB111-W941773716D36C3FEBDD0D4B4B10@phx.gbl>
References:  <54228969.9040506@digitaldissidents.org>,<D086D00B-5BD8-44C7-ADB5-8789EF4A9032@gp-digital.org>,<DUB111-W941773716D36C3FEBDD0D4B4B10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <DUB111-W37A8DCE07732256DBD9664B4B10@phx.gbl>



From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com
To: lists at digitaldissidents.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; jmalcolm at eff.org
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:05:58 +0000




I second Lea's and Avri's nominations. 
They continue to be great contributors to the issues and have demonstrated commitment. 
RgdsGraceFrom: Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org>
Date: 24 September 2014 10:05:45 BST
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
Reply-To: Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1 for Lea and Avri
+1 for more voices for more candidates (+ support) from developing
countries

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 09/23/2014 09:58 AM, Gabriel Ramokotjo wrote:
Would also like to add my support for John Dada.

Regards

G.M Ramokotjo On Sep 23, 2014 4:49 AM, "Seun Ojedeji"
<seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

This is to indicate my support for John Dada.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22
Sep 2014 17:10, "Teresa Tafida" <tesstaff.5551 at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jeremy


I wish to submit the following nomination Name: John Dada 
Country of residence: Nigeria Nationality: Nigerian Gender:
Male

John Dada is the CEO of Fantsuam Foundation, www.fantsuam.net,
in Nigeria. He has been an internet rights activist with
special passion for underserved and unserved communities of
rural Nigeria. He was the Chair of an APC-sponsored Broadband
for Nigeria process that developed a draft framework for the
country. He serves on the Executive Board of Association for
Progressive Communications and is on the Working Group of the
Nigerian Internet Freedom Bill. He has attended previous IGFs
including the most recent at Instanbul where he was active in
the Dynamic Coalition on Access and Disability.

John brings with him a wealth of experience from the developing
world perspective



On 18 Sep 2014, at 20:21, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
wrote:

This is a call for nominations for civil society
representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group
(MAG).

This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several
civil society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo,
NCSG, and Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate
through any of the above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday,
September 30

If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been
nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on list or by
email to jmalcolm at eff.org.

Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country
of residence and nationality, and gender. Please also
specifically address each of the selection criteria below,
giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee meets each
of the individual selection criteria.

CRITERIA

- Past record of active engagement as part of civil society
groups working on internet governance issues, acting or
speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest
concerns. - Willingness and commitment to consult with and
report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on
internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. -
Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. -
Willing, available and able to participate effectively and 
constructively in the MAG deliberations.

Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also
follow this process.


Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of
candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than
October 16.

-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic
Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::



____________________________________________________________ 
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


____________________________________________________________ You
received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




____________________________________________________________ You
received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUIolpAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpWg0IAJMlAkwiHLG9u4fSLPKyUM59
SDm0INah+GRuuCnPpx6iTjdnjBa5+OqI5Xcd6VS5rcZDfN9n/FciUl3QeD4X7rRN
BLdS7rhIyXj+CynQQ16cozh51wwQi71L/5We8Yjpg+4wLhRXdJoiwsSUsV8z286j
Rel5M4m3GbeyNAA8IzuwzAirfZRYywdupEyPAxvE9j9d0vqCx/ixkA7kbtJuGs9w
HjueLXdrXQ5VEgK4oNGGsW/9N6WKI2poC2fFweVmq0W4DiN3Nm2n52S06VkQATAS
pS4xkTS7T2M7NC54NgPXFL9yufp0qpq01CjrO648OuUkcP6JEsDNr2cQ7Y8bS+0=
=ExFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 		 	   		   		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140924/a5f1e79a/attachment.htm>

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Wed Sep 24 19:02:07 2014
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:02:07 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <DUB111-W941773716D36C3FEBDD0D4B4B10@phx.gbl>
References:  <54228969.9040506@digitaldissidents.org>,<D086D00B-5BD8-44C7-ADB5-8789EF4A9032@gp-digital.org>,<DUB111-W941773716D36C3FEBDD0D4B4B10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <DUB111-W748902F76D53B84C68232CB4B10@phx.gbl>



From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com
To: lists at digitaldissidents.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; jmalcolm at eff.org
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:05:58 +0000




I second Lea's and Avri's nominations. 
They continue to be great contributors to the issues and have demonstrated commitment. 
RgdsGraceFrom: Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org>
Date: 24 September 2014 10:05:45 BST
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
Reply-To: Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1 for Lea and Avri
+1 for more voices for more candidates (+ support) from developing
countries

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 09/23/2014 09:58 AM, Gabriel Ramokotjo wrote:
Would also like to add my support for John Dada.

Regards

G.M Ramokotjo On Sep 23, 2014 4:49 AM, "Seun Ojedeji"
<seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

This is to indicate my support for John Dada.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22
Sep 2014 17:10, "Teresa Tafida" <tesstaff.5551 at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jeremy


I wish to submit the following nomination Name: John Dada 
Country of residence: Nigeria Nationality: Nigerian Gender:
Male

John Dada is the CEO of Fantsuam Foundation, www.fantsuam.net,
in Nigeria. He has been an internet rights activist with
special passion for underserved and unserved communities of
rural Nigeria. He was the Chair of an APC-sponsored Broadband
for Nigeria process that developed a draft framework for the
country. He serves on the Executive Board of Association for
Progressive Communications and is on the Working Group of the
Nigerian Internet Freedom Bill. He has attended previous IGFs
including the most recent at Instanbul where he was active in
the Dynamic Coalition on Access and Disability.

John brings with him a wealth of experience from the developing
world perspective



On 18 Sep 2014, at 20:21, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
wrote:

This is a call for nominations for civil society
representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group
(MAG).

This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several
civil society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo,
NCSG, and Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate
through any of the above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday,
September 30

If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been
nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on list or by
email to jmalcolm at eff.org.

Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country
of residence and nationality, and gender. Please also
specifically address each of the selection criteria below,
giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee meets each
of the individual selection criteria.

CRITERIA

- Past record of active engagement as part of civil society
groups working on internet governance issues, acting or
speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest
concerns. - Willingness and commitment to consult with and
report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on
internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. -
Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. -
Willing, available and able to participate effectively and 
constructively in the MAG deliberations.

Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also
follow this process.


Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of
candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than
October 16.

-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic
Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::



____________________________________________________________ 
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


____________________________________________________________ You
received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




____________________________________________________________ You
received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUIolpAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpWg0IAJMlAkwiHLG9u4fSLPKyUM59
SDm0INah+GRuuCnPpx6iTjdnjBa5+OqI5Xcd6VS5rcZDfN9n/FciUl3QeD4X7rRN
BLdS7rhIyXj+CynQQ16cozh51wwQi71L/5We8Yjpg+4wLhRXdJoiwsSUsV8z286j
Rel5M4m3GbeyNAA8IzuwzAirfZRYywdupEyPAxvE9j9d0vqCx/ixkA7kbtJuGs9w
HjueLXdrXQ5VEgK4oNGGsW/9N6WKI2poC2fFweVmq0W4DiN3Nm2n52S06VkQATAS
pS4xkTS7T2M7NC54NgPXFL9yufp0qpq01CjrO648OuUkcP6JEsDNr2cQ7Y8bS+0=
=ExFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 		 	   		   		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140924/290307f1/attachment.htm>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 00:27:43 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:27:43 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Nomination to MAG
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6gQ2Fm+W5DP-GRRsJod_THBFPBE6Wxuov38xpEf-4vVJA@mail.gmail.com>

I wish to submit the following nomination

Name: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito

Region of residence: Africa

Nationality: Kenya

Gender: Male

Ephraim brings a youth from developing countries perspective. He is a
member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition on
Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF). He is an Internet
Governance Reform Fellow at Access (accessnow.org) and an affiliate at the
Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (created by the Center for Global
Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the
University of Pennsylvania)

He is a previous attendee at IGF at both the global and African regional
level and more recently in Istanbul, he has engaged assertively as a
panelist on Developing countries participation in global IG, Youth and Net
Neutrality issues in developing countries.

In addition, he is a fellow of the African School on Internet Governance in
South Africa (run by APC and NEPAD).

Ephraim brings with him a wealth of experience on engaging with various
stakeholders from the developing world perspective.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/e4a35968/attachment.htm>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 01:45:16 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:45:16 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Nomination to MAG
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6gQ2Fm+W5DP-GRRsJod_THBFPBE6Wxuov38xpEf-4vVJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD_dc6gQ2Fm+W5DP-GRRsJod_THBFPBE6Wxuov38xpEf-4vVJA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6h3BhG+922X0xz1_6-76s8_+rpHS8jfhnvxw54y4Ay=FA@mail.gmail.com>

<apologies for cross-posting>

Just received a teaser about my using uninterpreted acronyms ;). So I am
reiterating here that my nomination is to  the Internet governance forum
(IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Sep 2014 05:27, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wish to submit the following nomination
>
> Name: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>
> Region of residence: Africa
>
> Nationality: Kenya
>
> Gender: Male
>
> Ephraim brings a youth from developing countries perspective. He is a
> member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition on
> Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF). He is an Internet
> Governance Reform Fellow at Access (accessnow.org) and an affiliate
> at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (created by the Center for Global
> Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the
> University of Pennsylvania)
>
> He is a previous attendee at IGF at both the global and African regional
> level and more recently in Istanbul, he has engaged assertively as a
> panelist on Developing countries participation in global IG, Youth and Net
> Neutrality issues in developing countries.
>
> In addition, he is a fellow of the African School on Internet Governance
> in South Africa (run by APC and NEPAD).
>
> Ephraim brings with him a wealth of experience on engaging with various
> stakeholders from the developing world perspective.
>
> Regards
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/9e171605/attachment.htm>

From subi.igp at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 03:53:57 2014
From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:23:57 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Call for input
In-Reply-To: <CANRKRpJjKKoKJ_2ac5iS6xcEgHA2HNq_kwxAXTx6C03HDmaWnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch>
	<CANRKRpJjKKoKJ_2ac5iS6xcEgHA2HNq_kwxAXTx6C03HDmaWnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFfuWV=M=mh0cLK3ydHed-mQ3YdckZyKi_eZVnvJMBWzDZK8Kg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

This is a call for input.  Do please share it amongst your networks and
contribute.

Regards

Subi Chaturvedi

Call for input for the next Open Consultations and MAG meeting

Best regards,

Chengetai

Call for Input

All stakeholders are invited to submit by 27 October 2014 written
contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward
to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and
themes. The written contributions will be synthesized into a paper that
will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3
December. Please send all contributions  to takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/eb143a6e/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Sep 25 05:01:29 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:01:29 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch>
Message-ID: <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org>

Dear all

As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society
representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for rotation) I
think it is very important that we submit well-prepared written
submissions, and that as many of us as possible attend the December
meetings.

I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make sure
that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need some fixed
platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF. The Round Table
format in my view works very well, but then it is imperative that it is
not scheduled to conflict with rights related workshops as was the case
in Istanbul.

And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will also be
good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC.  APC will as
always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis for submission.

The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society groups
to have some idea about what theme or themes to support for the next IGF

Also some specific things to focus on would be:

1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback on what
worked what did not, etc.

2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in progress'
which still has flaws in my view

3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes use of
the services of someone who specialises in participatory event
organisation (very good people that we have worked with in the past are
https://aspirationtech.org/events)

So just a few thoughts.  If CS groups are going to submit collective
inputs there is not that much time left to prepare them.

Best

Anriette

*Call for Input*

All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014* written
contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking
forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format,
schedule and themes. The written contributions will be synthesized into
a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG
meetings of 1-3 December. Please send all contributions 
to takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org <mailto:takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org>.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/6eefb25f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Sep  1 05:47:38 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 05:47:38 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54043E30.8040809@cdt.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com> <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org> <5404308C.5030302@apc.org> <2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org> <54043E30.8040809@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <540440BA.5070008@mail.utoronto.ca>

I certainly am of the view that simply calling for permanancy is not 
enough, and figuring out what the next stage of the maturity model and 
what  it means has not achieved rough consensus (Adam spoke about this 
this morning in the session) so we will need to split off the stuff that 
does not have consensus and needs to be explored. Articulating the 
themes of that would be useful though and should not be dropped IMHO.
Stephanie
On 2014-09-01, 5:36, Matthew Shears wrote:
> I support Jeremy's point on two statements - particularly if the one 
> on a permanent mandate is multi-stakeholder.
>
> On 9/1/2014 12:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:38 AM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi - I agree with the idea of a joint statement making the IGF permanent
>>> However, I would point out that yesterday at the Best Bits meeting 
>>> we agreed to make a statement saying more than just that the IGF 
>>> should be made permanent - we also were to preparea a statement on 
>>> other issues and a smaller group had started notes on these during 
>>> the meeting on the meeting etherpad 
>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y at lines 330-339
>>> These still need more work -  a small group volunteered to work on 
>>> developing these into a statement that would be sent to this list 
>>> for comment and a call for support (myself, Dixie, Jeremy, Carolina 
>>> - maybe one or two others?)
>>
>> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the 
>> permanent mandate of the IGF, but I'm not sure whether people 
>> realised they would be supporting a broader statement covering other 
>> points (such as "concern at the number of new processes", which seems 
>> contentious to me, although I personally agree with it).  Can we have 
>> two separate outputs?  ie. I think there would be value in issuing a 
>> consensus statement on the renewal of the IGF, and putting the other 
>> paragraphs into an optional sign-on statement if they are more 
>> contentious and might detract from the unanimity of the message about 
>> extension of the IGF.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/aba13d0b/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 05:32:12 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:32:12 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch> <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org>
Message-ID: <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com>

Hi

+100 with one small addition

On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for rotation) I think it is very important that we submit well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as possible attend the December meetings.
> 
> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF. The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights related workshops as was the case in Istanbul.
> 
> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC.  APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis for submission.
> 
> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support for the next IGF
> 
> Also some specific things to focus on would be:
> 
> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback on what worked what did not, etc.
> 
> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in progress' which still has flaws in my view
> 
> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events) 

4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial statement.  Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is ‘mature’ enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and others.  There are various ideas about how this might be done, and it’d be great to see some of them in submissions.

Best

Bill
> 
> So just a few thoughts.  If CS groups are going to submit collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare them.
> 
> Best
> 
> Anriette
> 
> Call for Input
> All stakeholders are invited to submit by 27 October 2014 written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December. Please send all contributions  to takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Attached Message Part.txt>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/c131ebd3/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 05:42:36 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:42:36 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu> <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <10BCECEB-8533-4F26-B662-B527897A576B@gmail.com>

Hello

I would like to nominate Matt Shears (UK) of the Center for Democracy and Technology.  Matt has a proven record of professionalism and ability to work constructively not only with civil society partners but also governments and others stakeholders in such settings as the WSIS & WSIS+10, IGF, ITU, CSTD, and beyond.  He would be an excellent addition to the CS MAG contingent.

Best,

Bill


On Sep 19, 2014, at 2:05 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 on Avri and I’d like to nominate Lea Kaspar of Global Partners Digital for all the same reasons.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> 
>> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this list, very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable to report back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the strongest candidates we can get for this job.
>> 
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
>>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>> 
>>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
>>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
>>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>> 
>>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>> 
>>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
>>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
>>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>>> 
>>> CRITERIA
>>> 
>>> * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>>   working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>>>   assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>> * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>>   networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>>>   where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>> * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>>   constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>> 
>>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>>> process.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
>>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> 
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>> 
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>  www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************


From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 07:28:55 2014
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:28:55 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch> <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5423FC77.10607@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1

Ephraim

On 25/09/14 12:32, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
> 
> +100 with one small addition
> 
> On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen
> <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Dear all
>> 
>> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society 
>> representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for
>> rotation) I think it is very important that we submit
>> well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as
>> possible attend the December meetings.
>> 
>> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make
>> sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need
>> some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF.
>> The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is
>> imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights
>> related workshops as was the case in Istanbul.
>> 
>> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will
>> also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC.
>> APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis
>> for submission.
>> 
>> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society 
>> groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support
>> for the next IGF
>> 
>> Also some specific things to focus on would be:
>> 
>> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback
>> on what worked what did not, etc.
>> 
>> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in
>> progress' which still has flaws in my view
>> 
>> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes
>> use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory
>> event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in
>> the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events)
> 
> 4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial
> statement. Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is
> ‘mature’ enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be
> treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to
> demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and
> others.  There are various ideas about how this might be done, and
> it’d be great to see some of them in submissions.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
>> 
>> So just a few thoughts.  If CS groups are going to submit
>> collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare
>> them.
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>> *Call for Input*
>> 
>> All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014*
>> written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting
>> and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including
>> suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written
>> contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an
>> input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3
>> December. Please send all contributions to
>> takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org 
>> <mailto:takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org>.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <Attached Message 
>> Part.txt>____________________________________________________________
>>
>> 
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To unsubscribe or change
>> your settings, visit: 
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> *********************************************** William J. Drake 
> International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division,
> IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users
> Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org> 
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists), 
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org> 
> ***********************************************
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUI/x3AAoJEAz+0m3muo3BPUgP/1ekcm/+pEyGPT10CHZr0XMN
ufQbolhGQBggSeVi61bwsNjUsAX9PTV8XEm5hA9c9k61v53OkGDTRb7fD/VvISS4
PdgUijw+ADVszrFuLTuIULWEpTJ39exUALhqBlynfsR1GkimmaWFvzOK1hHRdT+J
3t3G2LjIs5Nos4u5Sc9R24LSH1zkfIY1Pchmf1WjKLgXXpGV0aVc2UXuCDcTCm4N
OozuUBc7+/kx7MtUZ3dg2T16culwHzqMoBzksI6vEvV58K4Cx/nOGGRmZqFn2eOE
Ydk82AEzC/sqmNTci0dUHiavpuKLsBAXB9GPeCZ9vE9xGUHKxFGvERnajSFJVR5T
zktmrs27HJAwdy4+EJ9gDPw+ZgOTcA2Tuh8aFxJ8F/BxmYINNQUIvJEVcP/8ou8V
FFF2i1jwDJMRHw4AOLooO8Hqjp51drr7QUKx7z6Sw5gxHghljyascwO0rv7vfR5W
aeyZHTIgC3mb3cW4ZvDMFP+Dnc0gO+Agt2qxBi5ReatLED6dbEgBxctKE1OgJcHq
FPDRzE9qtBXg4biREyURpgAVZ/aMLOvmUK7yElmwiVtCszpV7s1+Lw9dzPdbj+6S
EavPYLdzp2qNe61swGGN7mJFKo2qXYpqyWsIA68bdljjTzO9qEe71WgMK/fjfeG2
Kh3DA8WwGrFnMpoAcdiN
=SrC+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Thu Sep 25 07:57:35 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:57:35 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Nomination to MAG
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6gQ2Fm+W5DP-GRRsJod_THBFPBE6Wxuov38xpEf-4vVJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD_dc6gQ2Fm+W5DP-GRRsJod_THBFPBE6Wxuov38xpEf-4vVJA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwpwyhafu4mQpZhCWh3iTr8QaUXBhMQKRo12Nzucs1CrPw@mail.gmail.com>

As Anriette had indicated, it would be difficult for MAG members from
non-developing countries to get funding to attend physical MAG meetings. It
would be great to have the perspective of the youth in the MAG.

+1 for Ephraim Kenyanito

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson

On 25 September 2014 07:27, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wish to submit the following nomination
>
> Name: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>
> Region of residence: Africa
>
> Nationality: Kenya
>
> Gender: Male
>
> Ephraim brings a youth from developing countries perspective. He is a
> member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition on
> Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF). He is an Internet
> Governance Reform Fellow at Access (accessnow.org) and an affiliate
> at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (created by the Center for Global
> Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the
> University of Pennsylvania)
>
> He is a previous attendee at IGF at both the global and African regional
> level and more recently in Istanbul, he has engaged assertively as a
> panelist on Developing countries participation in global IG, Youth and Net
> Neutrality issues in developing countries.
>
> In addition, he is a fellow of the African School on Internet Governance
> in South Africa (run by APC and NEPAD).
>
> Ephraim brings with him a wealth of experience on engaging with various
> stakeholders from the developing world perspective.
>
> Regards
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/4f187758/attachment.htm>

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 09:38:30 2014
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:38:30 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Nomination to MAG
In-Reply-To: <CAEhPqwpwyhafu4mQpZhCWh3iTr8QaUXBhMQKRo12Nzucs1CrPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD_dc6gQ2Fm+W5DP-GRRsJod_THBFPBE6Wxuov38xpEf-4vVJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEhPqwpwyhafu4mQpZhCWh3iTr8QaUXBhMQKRo12Nzucs1CrPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54241AD6.6070909@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Thank you Seun.

And thank you to Kivuva for the endorsement to Seun's nomination.

I am thankful for the nomination and intend to send more text to
support my nomination.

Lastly, I do add my endorsement for Avri Dora, Lea Kaspar, Matt Shears
and John Dada.

I do believe that they will be great CS additions on the IGF MAG.

- --

Best Regards,
​​
Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
Tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120
@ekenyanito
Skype: ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1


On 25/09/14 14:57, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote:
> As Anriette had indicated, it would be difficult for MAG members 
> from non-developing countries to get funding to attend physical
> MAG meetings. It would be great to have the perspective of the
> youth in the MAG.
> 
> +1 for Ephraim Kenyanito
> 
> ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya 
> twitter.com/lordmwesh <http://twitter.com/lordmwesh>
> 
> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men 
> walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
> 
> On 25 September 2014 07:27, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> I wish to submit the following nomination
> 
> Name: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
> 
> Region of residence: Africa
> 
> Nationality: Kenya
> 
> Gender: Male
> 
> Ephraim brings a youth from developing countries perspective. He
> is a member of the interim steering committee for the Youth
> Coalition on Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF).
> He is an Internet Governance Reform Fellow at Access (accessnow.org
>  <http://accessnow.org/>) and an affiliate at the Internet Policy 
> Observatory (IPO) (created by the Center for Global Communication 
> Studies* *at the Annenberg School for Communication at the 
> University of Pennsylvania)
> 
> He is a previous attendee at IGF at both the global and African 
> regional level and more recently in Istanbul, he has engaged 
> assertively as a panelist on Developing countries participation in
>  global IG, Youth and Net Neutrality issues in developing 
> countries.
> 
> In addition, he is a fellow of the African School on Internet 
> Governance in South Africa (run by APC and NEPAD).
> 
> Ephraim brings with him a wealth of experience on engaging with 
> various stakeholders from the developing world perspective.
> 
> Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You 
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. 
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: 
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You 
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your 
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=WBTj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org  Thu Sep 25 10:48:35 2014
From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:48:35 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <10BCECEB-8533-4F26-B662-B527897A576B@gmail.com>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <541B31F3.8040908@wzb.eu>
 <D77D1EEB-59C5-4E1C-932C-67DCF38AF5A4@gmail.com>
 <10BCECEB-8533-4F26-B662-B527897A576B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A8FF4FF6-C6DD-4DFF-83A5-6DABCD19CC2F@ifla.org>

I second this emotion: + 1 for Matt

+1 for Lea as well!

Cheers,

Stuart

On 25 Sep 2014, at 11:42, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello

I would like to nominate Matt Shears (UK) of the Center for Democracy and Technology.  Matt has a proven record of professionalism and ability to work constructively not only with civil society partners but also governments and others stakeholders in such settings as the WSIS & WSIS+10, IGF, ITU, CSTD, and beyond.  He would be an excellent addition to the CS MAG contingent.

Best,

Bill


On Sep 19, 2014, at 2:05 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:

> +1 on Avri and I’d like to nominate Lea Kaspar of Global Partners Digital for all the same reasons.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu<mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> wrote:
>
>> I wish to nominate Avri Doria, US, female. She is well known on this list, very experienced and committed, and certainly willing and capable to report back. We need good people on the MAG, and Avri is one of the strongest candidates we can get for this job.
>>
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 18.09.14 21:21, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
>>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
>>> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>>
>>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
>>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
>>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>>
>>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>.
>>>
>>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
>>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
>>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>>>
>>> CRITERIA
>>>
>>> * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>>   working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>>>   assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>> * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>>   networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>>>   where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>> * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>>   constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>>
>>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>>> process.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
>>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org<https://eff.org/>
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org/>
> william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>  www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org/>
> ***********************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org/>
william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org/>
***********************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

Stuart Hamilton
IFLA Deputy Secretary General
IFLA Headquarters
The Hague
Netherlands

00 31 70 314 0884
stuart.hamilton at ifla.org<mailto:stuart.hamilton at ifla.org>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/569c2f7f/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Sep 25 12:33:52 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:33:52 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch> <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <542443F0.7090209@eff.org>

On 25/09/2014 2:32 am, William Drake wrote:
> 4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial statement.
>  Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is ‘mature’ enough
> to yield some measure of convergence and could be treated for one day
> in the NM manner could be a very useful way to demonstrate the
> increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and others.  There are
> various ideas about how this might be done, and it’d be great to see
> some of them in submissions.

Agreed, but it's not as if these ideas have not already been put forward
ad infinitum over previous years. Consider this Best Bits submission
from 2013, which remains equally relevant today:

http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/

(and a follow-up from 2014, http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/).

The problem is that the suggestions are just ignored.  Of course, it
won't stop us from making them again...

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/fdc018c3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/fdc018c3/attachment.sig>

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Sep 25 15:47:10 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:47:10 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <542443F0.7090209@eff.org>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch> <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com> <542443F0.7090209@eff.org>
Message-ID: <5424713E.3050602@apc.org>

Dear Jeremy

It is not  simply a case of these comments being ignored. The problem is
that there is not structure that can effectively evaluate them and
implement them.

Some suggestions have eventually found their way into some form of
implementation. The more 'practical' they are the more likely that the
Secretariat will do what they can to follow up. The more political and
strategic they are, the more complex and as the MAG tends to work on
consensus suggestions where different stakeholders have different views
(e.g. on the IGF making policy recommendations) are likely to go nowhere.

Also I have learnt - and it has really taken me years - that in the UN
system, and in policy advocacy in general, asking for the same things
year after year actually often works in the long run.  Civil society has
had in my view the clearest vision of what the IGF needs since its onset
(e.g. working groups, thematic IGFs, outcomes, inter-institutional
dialogue, support for participation, new approach to main sessions, etc.
etc.)

Why don't we do a stocktake of all our recommendations since the
beginning and resubmit those that that we can agree on  as important? It
will also be good in that we can see where we have been successful, or
partly successful. E.g. Best Bits asked for IG principles in 2012. We
now have them in the form of the NETmundial statement - and it is a set
of principles that draws extensively on our own work in the IRP dynamic
coalition.  What next?

Anriette


On 25/09/2014 18:33, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 25/09/2014 2:32 am, William Drake wrote:
>> 4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial statement.
>>  Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is ‘mature’
>> enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be treated for
>> one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to demonstrate
>> the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and others.  There are
>> various ideas about how this might be done, and it’d be great to see
>> some of them in submissions.
>
> Agreed, but it's not as if these ideas have not already been put
> forward ad infinitum over previous years. Consider this Best Bits
> submission from 2013, which remains equally relevant today:
>
> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/
>
> (and a follow-up from 2014, http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/).
>
> The problem is that the suggestions are just ignored.  Of course, it
> won't stop us from making them again...
>
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/5b1a0424/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Thu Sep 25 17:32:37 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:32:37 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <5424713E.3050602@apc.org>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch> <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com> <542443F0.7090209@eff.org> <5424713E.3050602@apc.org>
Message-ID: <542489F5.7030207@acm.org>

Hi,

I think this is a great idea.
And once done it will be something we can build on. And generate
comments from with greater ease.

I.e  something like


Recalling the comment made in 2012 <url>
and the comment made in 2013 <url>

acknowledging the smidgeon done in 2013 <url>

we again recommend ...

avri


On 25-Sep-14 15:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Jeremy
> 
> It is not  simply a case of these comments being ignored. The problem is
> that there is not structure that can effectively evaluate them and
> implement them.
> 
> Some suggestions have eventually found their way into some form of
> implementation. The more 'practical' they are the more likely that the
> Secretariat will do what they can to follow up. The more political and
> strategic they are, the more complex and as the MAG tends to work on
> consensus suggestions where different stakeholders have different views
> (e.g. on the IGF making policy recommendations) are likely to go nowhere.
> 
> Also I have learnt - and it has really taken me years - that in the UN
> system, and in policy advocacy in general, asking for the same things
> year after year actually often works in the long run.  Civil society has
> had in my view the clearest vision of what the IGF needs since its onset
> (e.g. working groups, thematic IGFs, outcomes, inter-institutional
> dialogue, support for participation, new approach to main sessions, etc.
> etc.)
> 
> Why don't we do a stocktake of all our recommendations since the
> beginning and resubmit those that that we can agree on  as important? It
> will also be good in that we can see where we have been successful, or
> partly successful. E.g. Best Bits asked for IG principles in 2012. We
> now have them in the form of the NETmundial statement - and it is a set
> of principles that draws extensively on our own work in the IRP dynamic
> coalition.  What next?
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 25/09/2014 18:33, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 25/09/2014 2:32 am, William Drake wrote:
>>> 4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial statement.
>>>  Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is ‘mature’
>>> enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be treated for
>>> one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to demonstrate
>>> the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and others.  There are
>>> various ideas about how this might be done, and it’d be great to see
>>> some of them in submissions.
>>
>> Agreed, but it's not as if these ideas have not already been put
>> forward ad infinitum over previous years. Consider this Best Bits
>> submission from 2013, which remains equally relevant today:
>>
>> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/
>>
>> (and a follow-up from 2014, http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/).
>>
>> The problem is that the suggestions are just ignored.  Of course, it
>> won't stop us from making them again...
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Thu Sep 25 19:49:07 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:49:07 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <542489F5.7030207@acm.org>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch> <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com> <542443F0.7090209@eff.org> <5424713E.3050602@apc.org> <542489F5.7030207@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5424A9F3.9010502@mail.utoronto.ca>

Great Idea Anriette, I agree, this is not only sometimes successful, but 
shows organization and persistence.   You can make it sound like the 
forward to an OECD Guideline, could be fun!
Stephanie
On 14-09-25 5:32 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think this is a great idea.
> And once done it will be something we can build on. And generate
> comments from with greater ease.
>
> I.e  something like
>
>
> Recalling the comment made in 2012 <url>
> and the comment made in 2013 <url>
>
> acknowledging the smidgeon done in 2013 <url>
>
> we again recommend ...
>
> avri
>
>
> On 25-Sep-14 15:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear Jeremy
>>
>> It is not  simply a case of these comments being ignored. The problem is
>> that there is not structure that can effectively evaluate them and
>> implement them.
>>
>> Some suggestions have eventually found their way into some form of
>> implementation. The more 'practical' they are the more likely that the
>> Secretariat will do what they can to follow up. The more political and
>> strategic they are, the more complex and as the MAG tends to work on
>> consensus suggestions where different stakeholders have different views
>> (e.g. on the IGF making policy recommendations) are likely to go nowhere.
>>
>> Also I have learnt - and it has really taken me years - that in the UN
>> system, and in policy advocacy in general, asking for the same things
>> year after year actually often works in the long run.  Civil society has
>> had in my view the clearest vision of what the IGF needs since its onset
>> (e.g. working groups, thematic IGFs, outcomes, inter-institutional
>> dialogue, support for participation, new approach to main sessions, etc.
>> etc.)
>>
>> Why don't we do a stocktake of all our recommendations since the
>> beginning and resubmit those that that we can agree on  as important? It
>> will also be good in that we can see where we have been successful, or
>> partly successful. E.g. Best Bits asked for IG principles in 2012. We
>> now have them in the form of the NETmundial statement - and it is a set
>> of principles that draws extensively on our own work in the IRP dynamic
>> coalition.  What next?
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 25/09/2014 18:33, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 25/09/2014 2:32 am, William Drake wrote:
>>>> 4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial statement.
>>>>   Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is ‘mature’
>>>> enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be treated for
>>>> one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to demonstrate
>>>> the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and others.  There are
>>>> various ideas about how this might be done, and it’d be great to see
>>>> some of them in submissions.
>>> Agreed, but it's not as if these ideas have not already been put
>>> forward ad infinitum over previous years. Consider this Best Bits
>>> submission from 2013, which remains equally relevant today:
>>>
>>> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/
>>>
>>> (and a follow-up from 2014, http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/).
>>>
>>> The problem is that the suggestions are just ignored.  Of course, it
>>> won't stop us from making them again...
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140925/8f6dcfd3/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Sep  1 05:53:04 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:53:04 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <540440BA.5070008@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com> <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org> <5404308C.5030302@apc.org> <2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org> <54043E30.8040809@cdt.org> <540440BA.5070008@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <076A14D8-5944-4966-B1CA-EA84E796BE8E@eff.org>

On Sep 1, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I certainly am of the view that simply calling for permanancy is not enough, and figuring out what the next stage of the maturity model and what  it means has not achieved rough consensus (Adam spoke about this this morning in the session) so we will need to split off the stuff that does not have consensus and needs to be explored. Articulating the themes of that would be useful though and should not be dropped IMHO. 

Agreed.  So far the text on IGF's permanent mandate on the Etherpad is very minimal and simply says "We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum with strengthened support."  There may be merit in keeping it this simple, so that it could be offered as the wording for the multi-stakeholder statement.  The longer it is, the more likely disagreement will keep in.  Yet, despite its simplicity, the message is still strong.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/0f89a939/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/0f89a939/attachment.sig>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 03:49:56 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:49:56 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <542443F0.7090209@eff.org>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch> <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com> <542443F0.7090209@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4FCFE2F6-48E6-4E2D-905F-13FEDFECED70@gmail.com>

Hi

On Sep 25, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On 25/09/2014 2:32 am, William Drake wrote:
>> 4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial statement.  Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is ‘mature’ enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and others.  There are various ideas about how this might be done, and it’d be great to see some of them in submissions.
> 
> Agreed, but it's not as if these ideas have not already been put forward ad infinitum over previous years. Consider this Best Bits submission from 2013, which remains equally relevant today:
> 
> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/
> 
> (and a follow-up from 2014, http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/).
> 
> The problem is that the suggestions are just ignored.  Of course, it won't stop us from making them again…

But as we’ve seen, some other stakeholders have become more amenable in light of the progression of events, and we have the NETmundial statement as tool that can be leveraged.

Best,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140926/59a782b0/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Sep 26 06:01:31 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:01:31 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <5423FC77.10607@gmail.com>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch> <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com> <5423FC77.10607@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5425397B.7000007@apc.org>

This is making me wonder if we should not start a platform to record all
the recommendations related to IG that we make?

Want to compile the African ones Kenyanito :) ?

E.g. we have now had recommendations coming out of 3 African IGFs, not
to mention subregional ones.

I wonder if the IGF would not want to create such a space? The current
site already provides a space for all contributions into open consultations:

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf

Anriette


On 25/09/2014 13:28, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito wrote:
> +1
>
> Ephraim
>
> On 25/09/14 12:32, William Drake wrote:
> > Hi
>
> > +100 with one small addition
>
> > On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen
> > <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society
> >> representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for
> >> rotation) I think it is very important that we submit
> >> well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as
> >> possible attend the December meetings.
> >>
> >> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make
> >> sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need
> >> some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF.
> >> The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is
> >> imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights
> >> related workshops as was the case in Istanbul.
> >>
> >> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will
> >> also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC.
> >> APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis
> >> for submission.
> >>
> >> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society
> >> groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support
> >> for the next IGF
> >>
> >> Also some specific things to focus on would be:
> >>
> >> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback
> >> on what worked what did not, etc.
> >>
> >> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in
> >> progress' which still has flaws in my view
> >>
> >> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes
> >> use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory
> >> event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in
> >> the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events)
>
> > 4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial
> > statement. Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is
> > ‘mature’ enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be
> > treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to
> > demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and
> > others.  There are various ideas about how this might be done, and
> > it’d be great to see some of them in submissions.
>
> > Best
>
> > Bill
> >>
> >> So just a few thoughts.  If CS groups are going to submit
> >> collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >> *Call for Input*
> >>
> >> All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014*
> >> written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting
> >> and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including
> >> suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written
> >> contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an
> >> input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3
> >> December. Please send all contributions to
> >> takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org
> >> <mailto:takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org>.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <Attached Message
> >> Part.txt>____________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To unsubscribe or change
> >> your settings, visit:
> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> > *********************************************** William J. Drake
> > International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division,
> > IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users
> > Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> > william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
> > wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> > www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> > ***********************************************
>
>
>
> > ____________________________________________________________ You
> > received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>

-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140926/4ec09705/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Sep 26 06:02:18 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:02:18 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch> <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <542539AA.90003@apc.org>

Thanks Bill.. very important addition.

Anriette

On 25/09/2014 11:32, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> +100 with one small addition
>
> On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society
>> representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for rotation)
>> I think it is very important that we submit well-prepared written
>> submissions, and that as many of us as possible attend the December
>> meetings.
>>
>> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make sure
>> that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need some
>> fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF. The Round
>> Table format in my view works very well, but then it is imperative
>> that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights related workshops as
>> was the case in Istanbul.
>>
>> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will also
>> be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC.  APC
>> will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis for
>> submission.
>>
>> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society
>> groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support for
>> the next IGF
>>
>> Also some specific things to focus on would be:
>>
>> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback on
>> what worked what did not, etc.
>>
>> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in progress'
>> which still has flaws in my view
>>
>> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes use
>> of the services of someone who specialises in participatory event
>> organisation (very good people that we have worked with in the past
>> are https://aspirationtech.org/events)
>
> 4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial statement.
>  Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is ‘mature’ enough
> to yield some measure of convergence and could be treated for one day
> in the NM manner could be a very useful way to demonstrate the
> increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and others.  There are
> various ideas about how this might be done, and it’d be great to see
> some of them in submissions.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>>
>> So just a few thoughts.  If CS groups are going to submit collective
>> inputs there is not that much time left to prepare them.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>> *Call for Input*
>>
>> All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014* written
>> contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking
>> forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format,
>> schedule and themes. The written contributions will be synthesized
>> into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and
>> MAG meetings of 1-3 December. Please send all contributions 
>> to takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org
>> <mailto:takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org>.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <Attached Message
>> Part.txt>____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ***********************************************
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140926/15326c05/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Sep 26 06:26:06 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:26:06 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: IGF open consultation and MAG
 meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <5425397B.7000007@apc.org>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch> <5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org> <D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com> <5423FC77.10607@gmail.com> <5425397B.7000007@apc.org>
Message-ID: <ea762568-3d04-4c0b-baa5-2978a15d18ac@email.android.com>

Hi Anriette, I think this such an excellent and overdue idea that I wonder why it didn't come up earlier. Perhaps this is a better way to move towards tangible outcomes. Jeanette 

On 26 September 2014 12:01:31 CEST, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>This is making me wonder if we should not start a platform to record
>all
>the recommendations related to IG that we make?
>
>Want to compile the African ones Kenyanito :) ?
>
>E.g. we have now had recommendations coming out of 3 African IGFs, not
>to mention subregional ones.
>
>I wonder if the IGF would not want to create such a space? The current
>site already provides a space for all contributions into open
>consultations:
>
>http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf
>
>Anriette
>
>
>On 25/09/2014 13:28, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Ephraim
>>
>> On 25/09/14 12:32, William Drake wrote:
>> > Hi
>>
>> > +100 with one small addition
>>
>> > On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen
>> > <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Dear all
>> >>
>> >> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society
>> >> representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for
>> >> rotation) I think it is very important that we submit
>> >> well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as
>> >> possible attend the December meetings.
>> >>
>> >> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make
>> >> sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need
>> >> some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF.
>> >> The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is
>> >> imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights
>> >> related workshops as was the case in Istanbul.
>> >>
>> >> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will
>> >> also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC.
>> >> APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis
>> >> for submission.
>> >>
>> >> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society
>> >> groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support
>> >> for the next IGF
>> >>
>> >> Also some specific things to focus on would be:
>> >>
>> >> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback
>> >> on what worked what did not, etc.
>> >>
>> >> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in
>> >> progress' which still has flaws in my view
>> >>
>> >> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes
>> >> use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory
>> >> event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in
>> >> the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events)
>>
>> > 4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial
>> > statement. Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is
>> > ‘mature’ enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be
>> > treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to
>> > demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and
>> > others.  There are various ideas about how this might be done, and
>> > it’d be great to see some of them in submissions.
>>
>> > Best
>>
>> > Bill
>> >>
>> >> So just a few thoughts.  If CS groups are going to submit
>> >> collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare
>> >> them.
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >>
>> >> Anriette
>> >>
>> >> *Call for Input*
>> >>
>> >> All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014*
>> >> written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting
>> >> and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including
>> >> suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written
>> >> contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an
>> >> input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3
>> >> December. Please send all contributions to
>> >> takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org
>> >> <mailto:takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org>.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> <Attached Message
>> >>
>Part.txt>____________________________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> >> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To unsubscribe or change
>> >> your settings, visit:
>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> > *********************************************** William J. Drake
>> > International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division,
>> > IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users
>> > Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
>> > william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>> > wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>> > www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>> > ***********************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> > ____________________________________________________________ You
>> > received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

From tanya.ocarroll at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 11:16:05 2014
From: tanya.ocarroll at gmail.com (Tanya O'Carroll)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:16:05 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Research/Adviser position at Amnesty
Message-ID: <CAGNfDi+hZYxJ-e8NWMPofOTMACxa9vu-M81pvKcwhRHy9O_8fQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I just wanted to share that AI are hiring for a new Researcher/Adviser
position focused on the Internet and human rights. Please do share among
your networks with anyone who you think may be interested.

The role will have a significant part to play in developing a new thematic
programme at AI on technology and human rights. The position is 1 year
fixed-term in London initially. Full details here: http://bit.ly/1naqvSk

Very grateful if you could help us to share!

All the best,
Tanya

ABOUT THE ROLE:

As a specialist researcher in this emerging area of human rights, you will
carry out in-depth investigations that will bring government and
corporations to account for involvement in human rights abuses. Focusing
largely on digital communications technologies, that means researching key
issues like freedom of expression online, unlawful communications
surveillance practices, online censorship and access to the Internet.
Whether you're carrying out desk-based research or conducting in-country
fact-finding, you will be contributing to advancing the debate on the role
of human rights in relation to internet governance, unlawful surveillance
practices and corporate transparency and accountability by using an
evidence based approach.

You will be able to analyse and document key findings in light of
international human rights standards and collate your research into
comprehensive and influential reports recommending legal and political
change relevant to this subject area. Capitalizing on your astute
understanding and awareness of technology & human rights, you'll advise
people right across the Amnesty International movement. You'll also be
involved taking forward relevant lobbying and advocacy strategies, so you
can expect to have a big impact on our strategic direction.


-- 
Tanya O´Carroll
Tel: +44 7511 370 350
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140926/70acc251/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 12:15:44 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:15:44 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: CIP Outreach Update
In-Reply-To: <AC71D4738B2E344AB6F990269C192BF316E3681A@EEAPPSEREX14.appservices.state.sbu>
References: <AC71D4738B2E344AB6F990269C192BF316E3681A@EEAPPSEREX14.appservices.state.sbu>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfjQJaXLqW5nQ68dsmywMte8ka+TO7Y8WFSSjrYKmTG4A@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steffensen, Jennifer E <SteffensenJE at state.gov>
Date: Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Subject: CIP Outreach Update
To: "Steffensen, Jennifer E" <SteffensenJE at state.gov>


 Good Afternoon!



It’s a busy time in the State Department’s Office of International
Communications and Information Policy (CIP) as the countdown to Busan
continues.  We’d like to share with you two recent DipNote blog articles as
well as a CSPAN video:



   - Supporting an Inclusive and Open Internet
   <http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/09/25/supporting-inclusive-and-open-internet>,
   by Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda, Coordinator Christopher Painter, and Deputy
   Assistant Secretary Scott Busby, highlights the U.S. government’s
   commitment to preserving an Open Internet, and to continuing to evolve its
   governance towards an increasingly inclusive system that enables and
   empowers individuals and innovation worldwide.



   - Preparing for Busan
   <http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/09/17/preparing-busan-regional-unity-inter-american-proposals-2014-international>,
   by Ambassador Sepulveda, discusses U.S. engagement with regional partners
   at the recent International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regional
   Preparatory Meeting in Buenos Aires.



   - Ambassador Sepulveda also spoke yesterday at a Brookings panel event
   on the topic, “Is the Internet Starting to Fracture?”  Watch the CSPAN
   video
   <http://www.c-span.org/video/?321710-1/discussion-international-internet-policy>.




As always, we encourage you to follow CIP on EB’s Facebook  and Twitter
accounts available here <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/>.



Thanks for reading.  Please respond to this email directly (
SteffensenJE at state.gov) if you wish to be removed from this mailing list.



Best Regards,



Jen





*---*

Jennifer Steffensen

Foreign Affairs Officer

Office of International Communications and Information Policy

U.S. Department of State

202-647-0965



 This email is UNCLASSIFIED.





-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140926/6ca5cee9/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Sep 26 13:04:14 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:34:14 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: CIP Outreach Update
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfjQJaXLqW5nQ68dsmywMte8ka+TO7Y8WFSSjrYKmTG4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AC71D4738B2E344AB6F990269C192BF316E3681A@EEAPPSEREX14.appservices.state.sbu> <CAK-FJAfjQJaXLqW5nQ68dsmywMte8ka+TO7Y8WFSSjrYKmTG4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54259C8E.1080402@itforchange.net>


On Friday 26 September 2014 09:45 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Steffensen, Jennifer E* <SteffensenJE at state.gov 
> <mailto:SteffensenJE at state.gov>>
> Date: Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:11 PM
> Subject: CIP Outreach Update
> To: "Steffensen, Jennifer E" <SteffensenJE at state.gov 
> <mailto:SteffensenJE at state.gov>>
>
>
> Good Afternoon!
>
> It’s a busy time in the State Department’s Office of International 
> Communications and Information Policy (CIP) as the countdown to Busan 
> continues.  We’d like to share with you two recent DipNote blog 
> articles as well as a CSPAN video:
>
>   * Supporting an Inclusive and Open Internet
>     <http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/09/25/supporting-inclusive-and-open-internet>,
>     by Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda,
>
 From this propaganda article

"There are some actors who want to radically change the existing 
multistakeholder approach to Internet governance by centralizing control 
over the Internet under an intergovernmental organization, effectively 
giving governments sole authority over the choices that affect the 
Internet’s design and operation.”
There are some actors who want to radically change the existing 
multistakeholder approach to Internet governance by centralizing control 
over the Internet under an intergovernmental organization, effectively 
giving governments sole authority over the choices that affect the 
Internet’s design and operation.  - See more at: 
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/09/25/supporting-inclusive-and-open-internet#sthash.Xlen7qHd.dpuf
There are some actors who want to radically change the existing 
multistakeholder approach to Internet governance by centralizing control 
over the Internet under an intergovernmental organization, effectively 
giving governments sole authority over the choices that affect the 
Internet’s design and operation.  - See more at: 
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/09/25/supporting-inclusive-and-open-internet#sthash.Xlen7qHd.dpuf 

There are some actors who want to radically change the existing 
multistakeholder approach to Internet governance by centralizing control 
over the Internet under an intergovernmental organization, effectively 
giving governments sole authority over the choices that affect the 
Internet’s design and operation.  - See more at: 
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/09/25/supporting-inclusive-and-open-internet#sthash.Xlen7qHd.dpuf


Yes, just like UNESCO has meant that governments have the sole control 
over how our kids are educated, and WHO ensures that governments fully 
control every aspect of our health, UNEP means that every element of our 
environment is determined by the governments............

Internet exceptionalism is a fool's paradise, but it stays popular 
because it serves so many interests, and those who need to speak up that 
this is just US gov and corporates saying, lets us keep the control over 
the Internet, have forgotten that it for them to speak up.

parminder




>   * Coordinator Christopher Painter, and Deputy Assistant Secretary
>     Scott Busby, highlights the U.S. government’s commitment to
>     preserving an Open Internet, and to continuing to evolve its
>     governance towards an increasingly inclusive system that enables
>     and empowers individuals and innovation worldwide.
>
>   * Preparing for Busan
>     <http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/09/17/preparing-busan-regional-unity-inter-american-proposals-2014-international>,
>     by Ambassador Sepulveda, discusses U.S. engagement with regional
>     partners at the recent International Telecommunications Union
>     (ITU) Regional Preparatory Meeting in Buenos Aires.
>
>   * Ambassador Sepulveda also spoke yesterday at a Brookings panel
>     event on the topic, “Is the Internet Starting to Fracture?”  Watch
>     the CSPAN video
>     <http://www.c-span.org/video/?321710-1/discussion-international-internet-policy>.
>
>
> As always, weencourage you to follow CIP on EB’s Facebook  and Twitter 
> accounts available here <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/>.
>
> Thanks for reading.  Please respond to this email directly 
> (SteffensenJE at state.gov <mailto:SteffensenJE at state.gov>) if you wish 
> to be removed from this mailing list.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jen
>
> *---*
>
> Jennifer Steffensen
>
> Foreign Affairs Officer
>
> Office of International Communications and Information Policy
>
> U.S. Department of State
>
> 202-647-0965 <tel:202-647-0965>
>
> This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140926/0fb49ccd/attachment.htm>

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 14:29:48 2014
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:29:48 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IGF open consultation and MAG meeting December 2014
In-Reply-To: <5425397B.7000007@apc.org>
References: <FFD5050D-50BF-4954-A074-A18FF124F458@unog.ch>
	<5423D9E9.7020703@apc.org>
	<D291F388-372E-4197-BEFE-40C1BEE89DD4@gmail.com>
	<5423FC77.10607@gmail.com>
	<5425397B.7000007@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeEspiCKFNzhzL7M2qhYnXM5ejvFBsn8AiVT=F+rdbiC2g@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Anriette,

Great ideas, will be great to finally get the report for AfIGF and all sub
regionals into one space, this will assist in providing more concrete
outcomes. Currently working on looking into the AfIGFs but still waiting
for 2014 report.


--

Best Regards,
​​
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
Tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120
@ekenyanito
Skype: ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1

On 26 September 2014 13:01, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

>  This is making me wonder if we should not start a platform to record all
> the recommendations related to IG that we make?
>
> Want to compile the African ones Kenyanito :) ?
>
> E.g. we have now had recommendations coming out of 3 African IGFs, not to
> mention subregional ones.
>
> I wonder if the IGF would not want to create such a space? The current
> site already provides a space for all contributions into open consultations:
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 25/09/2014 13:28, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Ephraim
>
> On 25/09/14 12:32, William Drake wrote:
> > Hi
>
> > +100 with one small addition
>
> > On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen
> > <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org> <anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> As there will be fairly dramatic rotation of civil society
> >> representatives on the MAG this year (most of us are up for
> >> rotation) I think it is very important that we submit
> >> well-prepared written submissions, and that as many of us as
> >> possible attend the December meetings.
> >>
> >> I would suggest that IRP makes a submission was we need to make
> >> sure that human rights issues do not slip off the agenda. We need
> >> some fixed platform for synthesising rights issues at every IGF.
> >> The Round Table format in my view works very well, but then it is
> >> imperative that it is not scheduled to conflict with rights
> >> related workshops as was the case in Istanbul.
> >>
> >> And if both Best Bits and Governance can send inputs that will
> >> also be good, and of course others too such as Just Net and NCUC.
> >> APC will as always do our 'assessment' and use that as a basis
> >> for submission.
> >>
> >> The other thing that would be helpful would be for civil society
> >> groups to have some idea about what theme or themes to support
> >> for the next IGF
> >>
> >> Also some specific things to focus on would be:
> >>
> >> 1) The Best Practice Forum mechanism - recommendations, feedback
> >> on what worked what did not, etc.
> >>
> >> 2) Workshop proposal review process - a constant 'work in
> >> progress' which still has flaws in my view
> >>
> >> 3) Format of the event - I am going to propose that the IGF makes
> >> use of the services of someone who specialises in participatory
> >> event organisation (very good people that we have worked with in
> >> the past are https://aspirationtech.org/events)
>
> > 4)  Strengthening the IGF, consistent with the NETmundial
> > statement. Intersessional work to prepare a topic or two that is
> > ‘mature’ enough to yield some measure of convergence and could be
> > treated for one day in the NM manner could be a very useful way to
> > demonstrate the increasing utility of the IGF to the UNGA and
> > others.  There are various ideas about how this might be done, and
> > it’d be great to see some of them in submissions.
>
> > Best
>
> > Bill
> >>
> >> So just a few thoughts.  If CS groups are going to submit
> >> collective inputs there is not that much time left to prepare
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >> *Call for Input*
> >>
> >> All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014*
> >> written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting
> >> and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including
> >> suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written
> >> contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an
> >> input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3
> >> December. Please send all contributions to
> >> takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org
> >> <mailto:takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org>
> <takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org>.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <Attached Message
> >> Part.txt>____________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To
> unsubscribe or change
> >> your settings, visit:
> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> > *********************************************** William J. Drake
> > International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division,
> > IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users
> > Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> <http://www.ncuc.org>
> > william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
> <william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
> > wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> (lists),
> > www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> > ***********************************************
>
>
>
> > ____________________________________________________________ You
> > received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>  >
> >
>
> --
> `````````````````````````````````
> anriette esterhuysen
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
> anriette at apc.org
> www.apc.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140926/bf80e285/attachment.htm>

From lgrodrig at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 17:39:27 2014
From: lgrodrig at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Luis_Germ=C3=A1n_Rodr=C3=ADguez_Leal?=)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:09:27 -0430
Subject: [bestbits] Introducing my Nomination to the MAG of IGF
Message-ID: <CANf-um_dMmK65578=v26tNqTDKMUv9sGGXLBbELYV1Hmr+ohjg@mail.gmail.com>

My regards to everyone,
      I have been nominated by FUNREDES (funredes.org) as a representant of
the Latin American and Caribbean member of the civil society.
      For those who do not know me, most of you, I enclose below a brief
resume similar to the one included in the nomination form.
      I would like you consider to support my candidature. I have been
working on this field for a long time and my experience is a good asset to
develop a innovative job with the collaboration of all the members of the
civil society.
      I am available to receive your comments and to answer the questions
you may have about my vision of IGF and the future of this initiative.
      Thanks in advance for your kind attention. Seguimos.
          LG


==========================================================================
*CV Resumé*

Researcher at the Universidad Central de Venezuela (UCV). My main research
field have been understanding and assessment of social and organisational
impacts of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Internet
Governance and education. Former Director of the School of Computer
Sciences. Member of the Managerial Committee of the research project
“Knowledge Management at the UCV” since 2005.

I have been consultant on Information and Communication Technologies for
development and education for several public and private organisations
including the United Nations Program for Development (UNDP), United Nations
Institute for Training and Research, Fundación Telefónica Venezuela,
Comunidad Andina de Naciones, Venezuelan Ministry of Science and
Technology, Office of Planning of the Higher Education Sector, among others.

Consultant at FUNREDES (Fundación Redes y Desarrollo). Member of the
coordination team of the projects Methodology and Social Impact of the ICT
in America and Latin American Observatory of the ICT in Action.

Former Co-ordinator and first President of the Venezuelan academic network
REACCIUN (first Venezuelan ISP).

I played an active role on of the Forum of Latin-American and Caribbean
Networks since 1991, forum devoted to promote non-profit national networks.
Author of several papers published on books and recognised magazines. I
have been speaker on diverse national and international events, including
the conferences of the Working Group on Information Technology for
Developing Countries of the International Federation for Information
Processing (IFIP) and the Annual Conferences of Internet Society (ISOC),
Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC), Latin
American and Caribbean Economic System (SELA). I am a ISOC member since
1992. Expert/Moderator of the ISOC courses “Shaping the Internet: History
and Future” (VE-Chapter 2013 & 2014). Participant at the World Summit of
the Information Society (Geneva 2003) presenting several products
collaboratively created in Latin America and the Caribbean.
==========================================================================

--

Luis Germán Rodríguez L.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Mientras haya danza hay esperanza". Estudantina Musical. RJ, Brasil.-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140926/a459c7a1/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Sat Sep 27 05:03:22 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 10:03:22 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
Message-ID: <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org>

So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the process:

* Avri Doria
* Lea Kaspar
* John Dada
* Matthew Shears
* Ephraim Percy Kenyanito

Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so to send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?

Thanks.

On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).  
> 
> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
> 
> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to jmalcolm at eff.org. 
> 
> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
> 
> CRITERIA
> Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
> Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
> Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
> Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations.
> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this process.
> 
> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140927/de2403fe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140927/de2403fe/attachment.sig>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Mon Sep  1 05:54:18 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:54:18 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54043E30.8040809@cdt.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com> <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org> <5404308C.5030302@apc.org> <2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org> <54043E30.8040809@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <9A7041F3-32E1-4D61-AB90-734FAD9D50CD@theglobaljournal.net>

Hi all,

Could it be possible to have a draft before sending +1 around? I think Jeremy's comment is rather critical:
"but I'm not sure whether people realized they would be supporting a broader statement covering other points"

Having a statement saying that "people at BB support the idea of renewing the IGF mandate" would be a statement of poor impact, showing no real willingness to go beyond what has lead the current IGF in some sort of dead-end, both politically and intellectually. 

It might not be that difficult to create unanimity (and not just consensus of XX's type or YY's type) on some of IGF challenges, but that would definitely help to work with clarity from the very beginning.

Looking forward.

JC


Le 1 sept. 2014 à 11:36, Matthew Shears a écrit :

> I support Jeremy's point on two statements - particularly if the one on a permanent mandate is multi-stakeholder.
>  
> On 9/1/2014 12:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:38 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi - I agree with the idea of a joint statement making the IGF permanent
>>> However, I would point out that yesterday at the Best Bits meeting we agreed to make a statement saying more than just that the IGF should be made permanent - we also were to preparea a statement on other issues and a smaller group had started notes on these during the meeting on the meeting etherpad https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y at lines 330-339 
>>> These still need more work -  a small group volunteered to work on developing these into a statement that would be sent to this list for comment and a call for support (myself, Dixie, Jeremy, Carolina - maybe one or two others?)
>> 
>> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the permanent mandate of the IGF, but I'm not sure whether people realised they would be supporting a broader statement covering other points (such as "concern at the number of new processes", which seems contentious to me, although I personally agree with it).  Can we have two separate outputs?  ie. I think there would be value in issuing a consensus statement on the renewal of the IGF, and putting the other paragraphs into an optional sign-on statement if they are more contentious and might detract from the unanimity of the message about extension of the IGF.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>> 
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> 
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/1826264f/attachment.htm>

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 12:58:47 2014
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:58:47 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] On WSIS+10 -- Fwd: Critical Comments on WSIS+10 Review
Message-ID: <CAJkfFByNM-dKcFEOyi+OKbTT6ai0mUcc+PXOcTVR_F9akwK2FA@mail.gmail.com>

The following letter from June 12 addresses my analysis of WSIS
project goals affected by confusing open Internet with specialized
services.  The ITU Council Working Group on WSIS will meet this coming
week to address WSIS Review through next year.

Also here: http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/statements/wsis-10-letter/


Seth



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:39 AM
Subject: Critical Comments on WSIS+10 Review
To: Hamadoun Touré <hamadoun.toure at itu.int>, contact at ungis.org[,
numerous UNGIS contacts]


(Please see attached pdf of the following letter)

Dear Secretary-General Touré, UNGIS members and other participants and
observers of the 2014 WSIS+10 Review,

We are writing to note our concerns regarding the WSIS+10 Review,
since the process has not admitted critical contributions in the last
two months, including the inputs of Seth Johnson, who sought to take
part in the WSIS+10 Review beginning in March. While he was eventually
accredited for the May MPP and the present HLE/WSIS Forum meeting, his
submitted comments have not been admitted into the process.

Seth's contributions describe how the usage of key terms at the heart
of the WSIS project often work against its own goals as expressed in
the Action Lines. A candid review of the WSIS project must take this
type of input into account, and these concerns should be understood in
the next phases of the project, as the UN considers the course the
project will take after this year.

Seth identifies new priorities for the project based on its tendency
to encourage confusion of specialized services with the open Internet,
its working to implement a form of interoperability based on
conformance with policy without recognizing the maximal form of
interoperability already established between networks through the
Internet protocol, and its supporting vertically integrated
telecommunications environments while not adequately recognizing the
role of competitive access at the physical layer in supporting the
open Internet. He focuses on listing the numerous ways in which these
aspects of the project impact the Action Lines, including effects in
important areas of concern such as empowerment, digital inclusion and
capacity building; development, competition and the enabling
environment; openness, flexibility and innovation; governance and
cybersecurity; rights; and other areas.

We restate Seth's comments below, in the form of an open letter to the
UN GIS and the broader community of WSIS project participants, placing
his comments under useful headings and adding a few more comments
based on his analysis of the performance measures that the WSIS
project is using to quantify its progress. We believe that future
plans for the WSIS project should reflect these considerations.

The following paragraphs relate to the questions in the "Form 1"
submission form that participants in the WSIS+10 Review used for their
initial contributions to the process, and we have tagged each
paragraph with the numeric codes that correlate with the relevant
questions from that form.


Recommendations

Key Challenge: We recommend that the WSIS project act to secure the
open Internet by incorporating means for recognizing impacts on the
Internet's key characteristics as it proceeds to facilitate the
implementation of ICTs. (b1b)

Vision for Disadvantaged Groups: As a vision for addressing the needs
of disadvantaged groups, we recommend that the project assure that the
way the Internet empowers end users and independent providers be
secured by a process that incorporates recognition of the Internet's
key characteristics. (b1c)

Priority Implementation Issue: We recommend that the project pursue
the establishing of common understanding of key characteristics of the
Internet in order to set up systems to recognize impacts on its basic
nature and advantages. (b2c)

Improving Monitoring and Evaluation: We recommend that monitoring and
evaluation be improved by implementing performance measures that
reflect the distinction between open Internet and specialized
services. (b3a)

New Priorities and Objectives: Our review of the WSIS project reveals
critical areas for new priorities and objectives in relation to 1)
Action Line C2 (IC Infrastructure), wherein the project is acting to
replace open Internet with specialized service networks without
recognizing the difference; 2) in Action Line C5 (Confidence and
Security in ICTs), wherein the project is working to achieve
confidence on the basis of interoperability based on conformance with
policy without acknowledging the profound degree of confidence that
has already been achieved through the maximally flexible, general
purpose form of technical interoperability made possible across
networks by the Internet Protocol; and 3) in Action Line C6 (Enabling
Environment), wherein the project is framed in terms consistent with
policy environments that support vertically integrated
telecommunications contexts without recognizing that environments that
support competitive access to physical layer infrastructure enable a
context of competing and autonomous networks interoperating among
themselves to arise. (b2a2, b2a5, b2a6)

Priority Focuses, Goals and Targets: The priority focuses, goals and
targets we recommend for the WSIS project reflect the above new
priorities: 1) identify modalities for coexistence of open Internet
with specialized services, assuring the two are not conflated; 2)
before proceeding to operate under a general principle of "Internet
Universality" such as UNESCO recommends, first incorporate recognition
of two types of interoperability into the project: interoperability in
the sense of conformance with common policy, whether within or across
networks, and interoperability in the sense of technical, general
purpose interoperability that the Internet Protocol already makes
possible between networks; and 3) address the enabling environment
with explicit recognition of competitive access to physical layer
infrastructure in addition to policy contexts that support vertically
integrated telecommunications environments. (b3b)


Observations

We observe as a special comment that in general the WSIS project
encourages a confusion of the Internet with IP-based networks in
general, and it therefore enables a movement toward implementing
networks to support ICTs that may establish practices and policies
which may have adverse impacts on the openness, flexibility and
neutrality that arise naturally in an Internet platform made up of
competing and interoperating autonomous networks. (b4)

The following paragraphs enumerate trends that arise in relation to
the Action Lines as a result of the WSIS project's failure to
distinguish the Internet from other types of IP-based networks.

Empowerment, Digital Inclusion, Capacity Building:

If the difference is not recognized between what the open Internet
platform that arises among interoperating autonomous providers makes
possible, and the capacity for specialized services that individual
providers may implement within their own networks, then the outcome of
the Information Society project may easily be to supplant the type of
empowerment and digital inclusion that the Internet is designed to
bring, replacing it with narrower options that other types of
connectivity may entail, with pervasive effects on Action Lines C2,
C3, C4, C8 and C11. (b2b2, b2b3, b2b4, b2b8, b2b15, b2b18)

Failing to recognize the empowerment of end users and of independent
providers made possible by open Internet connectivity will lead to
overlooking of effects on self-determination, autonomy and
independence of communities such as the young people, women and girls,
nomadic and indigenous peoples, and communities residing in rural and
underserved regions which Action Line C4 references, or of the older
population, persons with disabilities, children and other
disadvantaged groups referenced by Action Line C2. (b2b2, b2b4)

The empowerment of end users made possible by an open Internet
platform made up of autonomous providers interoperating among
themselves is of a different character from that which managed service
frameworks enable within their individual networks, and from that
which may be expected in vertically integrated telecommunications
regimes such as we find in the United States. The types of ICT
applications that would be developed in all the categories covered by
Action Line C7 if they are not based on the open platform would
reflect this same difference in empowerment, and indeed end users
would be less able to freely develop these applications themselves.
This concern also relates to the nature of the national, regional and
international “broadband network” infrastructure that Action Line C2
advocates pursuing as the “essential foundation” for digital inclusion
in the Information Society. (b2b2, b2b7, b2b8, b2b9, b2b10, b2b11,
b2b12, b2b13, b2b14)

Conceptions of network types implied in Information Society
initiatives will affect access to information, cultural identity and
diversity, and international cooperation as envisioned by Action Lines
C3, C8 and C11. (b2b3, b2b15, b2b18)

These conceptions will affect the extent of empowerment that would
apply toward the calls in Action Line C8 to promote the production of
cultural works and local cultural industries, local community media,
local heritage and biological diversity, support for rural and
isolated communities, and local development for disadvantaged,
vulnerable, non-literate and disabled communities. (b2b15)

They will also affect the kinds of best practices that would be
recognized for promoting cultural and linguistic diversity and the
ways in which the capacity for indigenous peoples to develop works in
their language would be enhanced as advocated by Action Line C8. And
the role of diverse, local communities could be altered as the
public/private partnerships to promote cultural diversity, local and
national works, and “ICT-based works” that C8 encourages, interact
with policy and regulatory contexts associated with network
infrastructure, potentially producing new formulations of the role of
the government and private parties and of the nature of the
telecommunications regime. (b2b15)

The nature of the network will affect the content of the programmes
for capacity building, lifelong learning and universal education,
including the substance of courses in public administration, the
nature of the qualifications of ICT experts, and the role to be played
by the libraries, multipurpose community centers, local ICT training
centers, and public access points advocated by Action Line C4.
Conceptions of the network will also have impacts on Action Line C7's
promotion of e-learning and e-science in relation to qualifications of
ICT experts, accessibility and affordability of scientific
information, the effective use of scientific information, and the role
of universities and research institutions. (b2b4, b2b9, b2b14)

Development, Competition, the Enabling Environment:

A failure to recognize the characteristics of the Internet in the
Information Society’s initiatives will affect the goals of building
confidence and security in relation to the enabling environment for
development as called for by Action Line C6, given that understandings
of what constitutes a pro-competitive policy, legal and regulatory
context, and what appropriate incentives are, may reflect the
characteristics of other types of networks. (b2b6)

This includes the types of national policies for promoting investment
in infrastructure and new services called for in Action Line C2,
notably the incentivizing of infrastructure investment by treating
privileged access to the physical layer as a “supply” vertically
integrated with the production processes of higher layer services
offered by telecommunications incumbents, or the defining of policy
frameworks associated with the term “broadband.” These approaches may
enable various forms of price differentiation or tiers of service that
can be readily implemented within individual intranets, but not across
autonomous internetworking providers. (b2b2)

The types of commercially negotiated transit and interconnection
arrangements for global connectivity that Action Line C2 urges
pursuing could supplant the unique strengths and advantages of the
Internet if its characteristics are not delineated, and the advocating
of “objective, transparent and non-discriminatory parameters” for
connectivity in Action Line C2 could serve to replace recognition of
how the basis of the Internet in competitive interoperation among
independent providers can serve inclusivity by assuring the openness
of the platform is maintained by competitive pressure. (b2b2)

Action Line C7 seeks to support sustainable development and diverse
applications for public administration, business and numerous areas of
life that may be benefited by the Information Society. If policies for
promoting development of infrastructure and services are based on
vertical integration, this may support the sustainability of that type
of network, but it will not sustain the open Internet. End users would
be less able to freely develop applications themselves in a managed
service network or a vertically integrated telecommunications context,
and the diversity of types of ICT applications that would be developed
and supported in all the Action Line C7 categories would be adversely
affected if they are not based on an open platform. (b2b7, b2b8, b2b9,
b2b10, b2b11, b2b12, b2b13, b2b14)

The effects on e-business and e-employment in terms of economic
growth, opportunities, productivity, well-being, poverty,
international trade, investment and innovation, and assistance to
SMEs, as called for under Action Line C7, will vary depending on the
flexibility and openness of the network. (b2b8, b2b11)

Failing to recognize the nature of the Internet could affect not only
the type of connectivity that would be made available in service of
Action Line C11's calls for universal access and bridging of the
digital divide, and for international cooperation on infrastructure
development projects, but also the nature of the public-private
partnerships also called for by Action Line C11. In policy and
regulatory contexts that do not promote competitive access to the
physical layer, as we find in contexts that maintain vertically
integrated telecommunications environments, the promotion of
public-private partnerships can tend to entrench that pattern if those
arrangements do not incorporate appropriate recognition of the role of
public oversight of shared physical layer infrastructure. (b2b18)

Openness, Flexibility, Innovation:

The openness and flexibility of the Internet platform is supported by
competitive access at the physical layer, since competing providers
must transmit packets in a general purpose manner in order to
interoperate and provide global connectivity to their users. As a
result our confidence that the platform will support our ability to
innovate can be affected deleteriously if other types of networks are
employed to serve public security purposes through a core authority
without recognizing the impact those means would have on the Internet.
(b2b5, b2b6)

Some types of incentives for infrastructure development may be built
on capacities made possible in managed service frameworks (such as
discrete tiers of service allowing differentiated price schemes), or
that may be enabled by a regulatory environment that allows incumbents
to treat the infrastructure they install at the physical layer as a
private asset supplying a vertically integrated production process.
Our confidence that the platform will support innovation can be
undermined in contexts driven by these approaches to encouraging
development, which are distinct in nature from an approach based on an
Internet platform among autonomous providers who drive demand for
buildout through independent innovation in services as they compete
and interoperate at the physical layer. (b2b6)

Policies associated with document identifiers and electronic
authentication of transactions can interfere with the openness and
flexibility of the Internet platform if their impacts on its
collaborative and interactive attributes are not properly appreciated.
(b2b5)

Governance and Cybersecurity:

A failure to address the nature of the Internet as distinct from other
types of networks supporting specialized treatment of packets will
have impacts on concerns related to governance under Action Line C6
including how we define internet governance, public policy issues, and
roles and responsibilities of various parties, how various technology
policies relate to national strategies for public administration, and
the effect of enforcement of e-commerce, online transactions and
policies on the dynamic, interactive and collaborative capacities of
the open Internet. (b2b6)

Failing to recognize the Internet's special characteristics would also
affect how connectivity would work as the “fundamental working tool”
for local governance that Action Line C3 recommends recognizing.
(b2b3)

In the context of e-government under Action Line C7, transparency,
accountability and efficiency are served most reliably by a
competitive telecommunications environment populated by independent
providers who will agitate for accountability when their ability to
use the Internet platform in the maximally flexible way it was
designed for is impeded. Accountability also relates to the
relationship between a government and its people, within the context
of which people's rights are defined, and a competitive
telecommunications environment supports effective forms of
accountability in relation to rights as well as in relation to the
flexibility of the platform. (b2b7)

Failing to recognize the unique characteristics of the Internet will
also affect what comes to be understood as cybercrime and misuse of
ICTs in the context of Action Line C5, and what confidence and
security mean, both in terms of government enforcement of policy to
prevent crime or harm, and in terms of how well we may rely on
fundamental liberties as limits on government actions in the name of
cybersecurity. It will also affect understandings of the implications
of centralized or decentralized approaches to cybersecurity concerns
including areas such as spam and the nature of the roles of the
government and of network providers in many areas including real-time
incident response. Policies and approaches may easily be of a type
only enforceable within centrally-managed intranet environments, and
in the international context they may not be as well subject to the
claims of fundamental liberties as they are in free national contexts.
Policies associated with document identifiers and electronic
authentication of transactions, also referenced in the cybersecurity
context, can interfere with the openness and flexibility of the
Internet platform if those attributes are not explicitly acknowledged
and confronted. (b2b5)

Rights:

Like the effect on our confidence that the platform will support
innovation in the contexts of Action Lines C5 and C6, overlooking the
nature of the Internet will also affect our confidence that the
platform will support freedoms of speech, press and association, as
well as the right to be secure against unreasonable searches. Not only
are these rights exercised more freely on an open and flexible
Internet platform among autonomous and interoperating providers, but a
vertically integrated telecommunications context works to the
detriment of securing rights as limits on the government. (b2b5, b2b6)

If the telecommunications environment is vertically integrated, the
implication is that infrastructure will be treated as a private asset
of those who install it across the right of way, and as a result
fundamental liberties related to the communications of citizens,
understood as limits on the government, may be characterized as
inapplicable. Indeed in that framework oversight of public franchise
entities and common carriers in the form of regulation of
infrastructure might be characterized as a violation of the rights of
those who installed the infrastructure, rather than as a natural
reflection of the nature of the right of way as a resource that must
be governed to oversee access and foster competition. A context that
regulates infrastructure in these terms recognizes this oversight more
readily as a government function, which is thus directly barred from
abridging the fundamental liberties of the general public, and
incumbents in such a context naturally may incur obligations,
including limitations that reflect those that apply to the government,
in connection with their administration of a public franchise and
privileged access to right of way. So security in the sense of
reliable support for fundamental liberties may be affected when the
foundation of the Internet in competitive access at the physical layer
is overlooked, and infrastructure is instead treated as private assets
vertically integrated with the products and services of incumbent
providers. (b2b5, b2b6)

A failure to acknowledge the characteristics of the Internet will also
affect the goals of promoting rights to privacy, data and consumer
protection referenced in Action Lines C5 and C6. The conflicting
understanding of the roles of public oversight and private parties
derived from the telecommunications policy and regulatory environment
as described above, can affect the nature of user education regarding
privacy online, and of the initiatives and guidelines for rights of
privacy, data and consumer protection encouraged by Action Lines C5
and C6. (b2b5, b2b6)

Other Trends:

The Information Society's failure to distinguish the open Internet
from specialized service networks will also have other implications
for the WSIS Action Lines.

It will affect the type of connectivity that would be established for
schools, universities, health institutions, libraries, post offices,
community centers, museums, and other public institutions according to
the call in Action Line C2, and the nature of the pilot networking
projects among education, training and research institutions between
developing and developed countries, and in fact the very kinds of ICTs
that would be recognized as appropriate for integration into education
and training, referenced by Action Line C4. It will also affect the
kind of connectivity that would be made available for international
cooperation on infrastructure development projects as called for in
Action line C11. (b2b2, b2b4, b2b18)

It will affect the types of educational, administrative and
legislative measures to serve various disadvantaged groups, and indeed
the type of end user equipment, that Action Line C2 encourages
promoting. And it would affect the universal access policies and
strategies and connectivity indicators, systems standards, technical,
regulatory and operational studies in public/private partnerships, as
well as access to orbital resources, satellite for underserved areas,
and frequency harmonization advocated by Action Line C2. (b2b2)

It will affect types of information made available, what would count
as public domain, the forms of use and sharing of information that
would be supported, whether technically or by policy, the kinds of
exclusive rights that would apply in the context of the capabilities
of the technology, and the roles that would be played by multi-purpose
community public access points, all referenced by Action Line C3.
(b2b3)

It will affect the open, interoperable, non-discriminatory standards,
and the nature of the secure storage framework that Action Line C6
calls for. (b2b6)


Additional Comments: WSIS Performance Measures

We also call attention to Seth's analysis of the ITU's performance
measures for measuring the progress of the WSIS project, found at
http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2014/03/25/wsis-measures-understanding-impacts-on-the-internet/.

The ITU's performance measures essentially treat all high speed
connectivity as Internet without recognizing a distinction between
open Internet connectivity based on autonomous networks interoperating
among themselves by transmitting packets without regard for
application, and networks that support services based on more
specialized treatment of packets.

Among these measures, the Revenue and Investment indicator is defined
in terms of industry categories that make up the telecommunications
sector as defined in the International Standard Industrial
Classification (ISIC), Rev. 4. Among industry categories included
under telecommunications, the ISIC refers to the Internet solely in
relation to a vertically integrated context (“provision of Internet
access by the operator of the wired infrastructure”) and not in
relation to shared physical infrastructure (“purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of networks and providing
telecommunications services using this capacity”).

These observations illustrate that the WSIS project's failing to
distinguish the Internet from other types of IP-based networks is a
systemic problem, built into the definitions of the measures that the
project uses to assess its success and progress.

We recommend not only that the WSIS performance measures distinguish
open Internet from specialized services, but that they also be
designed to track vertically integrated telecommunications contexts
distinctly from contexts assuring competitive access to physical layer
infrastructure.

We urge that assessment of the progress of the WSIS project, including
the WSIS+10 Review, be performed as much as possible in the above
terms, addressing characteristics and advantages of the Internet that
are uniquely conducive to WSIS and broader UN goals, as well as
tracking effects of different types of networks on these goals and on
each other.

We recommend that United Nations agencies, including those
constituting the UN GIS, incorporate these insights in framing the
contribution of technologies and development programs to broader UN
goals, as well as in areas of concern related to Internet Governance,
including Enhanced Cooperation, proceedings of the Internet Governance
Forum, and various other proceedings such as those related to
Internet-related Public Policy Issues.


Signed (affiliations listed for identification purposes only):

Michel Bauwens, P2P Foundation
Robin Chase, Founder, Zipcar, GoLoco, Buzzcar, Veniam 'Works
Gene Gaines, Gaines Group
Robert Gregory, BSEE, UCB, Non-Profit IT Director and IP Network Evangelist
Robin Gross, Executive Director, IP Justice
Michael Maranda, Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Sascha Meinrath, Director, X-Lab, Founder, Open Technology Institute
John T. Mitchell, Interaction Law
Hunter Newby, CEO, Allied Fiber
Bruce Perens, co-founder of the Open Source movement in software
Ian Peter, Internet Consultant and Owner, Ian Peter and Associates
David P. Reed, Ph.D., Internet Pioneer
Chuck Sherwood, Principal, Community Media Visioning
Clay Shirky, Interactive Telecommunications Program, New York University
Aram Sinnreich, Ph.D., Author and Journalist, Assistant Professor, Rutgers
Jay Sulzberger, Statistical Consultant
Brough Turner, Founder, netBlazr Inc ., Co-founder & former CTO of NMS
Communications and of Natural MicroSystems
Paul Vixie, CEO, Farsight Security
John G. Waclawsky Ph.D., Technology Advisor and Consultant, Chicago
and Washington
John Wilbanks, Chief Commons Officer at Sage Bionetworks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Letter to WSIS+10 on Critical Impacts.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 57024 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140927/4021f234/attachment.pdf>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Sep 28 02:34:22 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:04:22 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Internet - whether to regulate it or not
Message-ID: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/fast-lane-slow-lane--no-l_b_5865996.html

This article tell you what non regulation of the Internet is about, and 
it still does not even talk about the free run that global Internet 
monopolies seeks.

No, it is not about "Internet freedom" - that is a clever cover up, but 
many of us are all just too eager to believe.

(Freedom of expression is important but of course US gov and US 
corporations have no real interest in it.)

In 1997, the United Nations adopted the Model Law on Electronic Commerce 
that had been developed by the UN Commission on International Trade Law. 
In fact the India's IT Act 2000, which is still the omnibus law in India 
governing electronic transactions, makes reference to this Model Law in 
its preamble.

Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we not 
discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based telecommunication  
and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple and obvious question 
for me? Please, I am serious.

But no, that will be blasphemy. Those are all attempts by governments to 
take over the Internet, watch out! Why? Because US tell us so. And so 
many of us are happy to take our cues from the US, and its political and 
corporate allies. (Has it anything to do with from where the money flows?).

We badly need a global discussions on and adoption of a model law on IP 
based telecommunications, and on net neutrality.

But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail, and a lot of 
resources thrown into it. The musical for the next meeting in Busan in 
Korea has already started. ( 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/09/the-state-departments-plan-to-spark-a-global-sopa-style-uprising-around-internet-governance/ 
). Wait and see how the "multistakeholder community" that mystical 
organism, dances to one tune, that which emanates from the US. I feel 
pity for all the risks that Snowden took and the sacrifices he made.

  parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140928/a9b5935c/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Sep 28 04:59:53 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 14:29:53 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or
 not
In-Reply-To: <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 28 September 2014 12:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> An utterly disingenuous take on a shallow article
>
> Also who is actually paying the various people in the multistakeholder 
> community?
>
> You too are a stakeholder and doubtless the money you spend on airfare 
> to various igov events doesn't materialize from thin air
>

The only time I will post to this particular post-er - simply bec this 
is a matter of public accountability, and all kinds make the public 
which however does not reduce the accountability.

  All of mine and IT for Change's funding are on our website 
(www.ITforChange.net , see annual reports) , we also provide a 'your 
right to know' button which encourages anyone to ask us questions about 
us which we promise to respond to in 15 days. We think such transparency 
and accountability is basic to civil society and those who are not ready 
to do so have no right to claim to be working for public interest. 
(Except in the extreme cases when such transparency would hurt the 
particular public interest that any group works for, which is rare, and 
the exception cannot be extended to be the rule. The rule is transparency.)
Time and again we have encouraged all civil society individuals and 
groups in the (highly political) IG space to do the same, but got little 
response, sometime even aggressively negative response. This was one of 
the main reason of estrangement of some people with bestbits group's 
leadership, but people were willing to make members unhappy and decrease 
their engagement then take up the issue of funding transparency.

parminder


> So what is the objection here?
>
> On 28 September 2014 12:05:02 pm parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/fast-lane-slow-lane--no-l_b_5865996.html
>>
>> This article tell you what non regulation of the Internet is about, 
>> and it still does not even talk about the free run that global 
>> Internet monopolies seeks.
>>
>> No, it is not about "Internet freedom" - that is a clever cover up, 
>> but many of us are all just too eager to believe.
>>
>> (Freedom of expression is important but of course US gov and US 
>> corporations have no real interest in it.)
>>
>> In 1997, the United Nations adopted the Model Law on Electronic 
>> Commerce that had been developed by the UN Commission on 
>> International Trade Law. In fact the India's IT Act 2000, which is 
>> still the omnibus law in India governing electronic transactions, 
>> makes reference to this Model Law in its preamble.
>>
>> Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we not 
>> discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based telecommunication  
>> and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple and obvious 
>> question for me? Please, I am serious.
>>
>> But no, that will be blasphemy. Those are all attempts by governments 
>> to take over the Internet, watch out! Why? Because US tell us so. And 
>> so many of us are happy to take our cues from the US, and its 
>> political and corporate allies. (Has it anything to do with from 
>> where the money flows?).
>>
>> We badly need a global discussions on and adoption of a model law on 
>> IP based telecommunications, and on net neutrality.
>>
>> But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail, and a lot 
>> of resources thrown into it. The musical for the next meeting in 
>> Busan in Korea has already started. ( 
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/09/the-state-departments-plan-to-spark-a-global-sopa-style-uprising-around-internet-governance/ 
>> ). Wait and see how the "multistakeholder community" that mystical 
>> organism, dances to one tune, that which emanates from the US. I feel 
>> pity for all the risks that Snowden took and the sacrifices he made.
>>
>>  parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140928/3d06260d/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Sun Sep 28 12:00:07 2014
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:00:07 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
	<5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjyBUncruQW99yttPvDfTWvhzdjagJBdv=g58kfC_gEwaQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy, all,

Find below a personal statement supporting my MAG nomination, as well as a
short bio in case helpful.

Could you indicate whether we are also meant to submit our nominations
directly through the IGF website?

Thanks,
Lea

---

Name: Lea Kaspar

Gender: Female

Nationality: Croatian

Country of residence: UK



*Personal statement and IG-related work:*

Since 2012, the specific focus of my work has been to strengthen
broad-based and representative civil society voices in Internet governance
debates. I have concentrated upon facilitating coordinated civil society
advocacy in the last two Internet Governance Forums (IGF)[1] <#_ftn1>,
NETmundial, the WSIS+10 Review process, the UN Commission on Science and
Technology for Development’s (CSTD) Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
(WGEC), and various processes of the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) including the WCIT, the WTPF, and the WSIS+10 MPP.



I have also engaged in these processes as an on-site participant, observer,
and panellist, providing direct written and oral inputs. In addition, I
have conducted independent research to contextualise and communicate
outputs and relevance of these processes to the broader community (see for
instance this mapping
<http://www.gp-digital.org/publication/internet-governance-processes-visualising-the-playing-field/>
of Internet governance processes, this report
<http://www.gp-digital.org/publication/unlocking-enhanced-cooperation/>
about enhanced cooperation, and the chapter on NETmundial follow up I
co-authored as part of this publication
<http://globalnetpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BeyondNETmundial_FINAL.pdf>
).



In all these efforts, I have always tried to work constructively with
various civil society networks and organisations as well as representatives
from other stakeholder groups, continuously applying a consultative and
action-oriented approach.



At this critical point for the IGF, I am eager to use my knowledge, skills,
and networks to build upon previous civil society efforts to strengthen and
improve the Forum – practically and substantively – and to work towards the
evolution of an Internet governance ecosystem that helps promote and
protect human rights and the public interest. My detailed views on IGF
reform are broadly reflected in this BestBits statement
<http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/>.


*Short bio:*

As a programme lead at Global Partners Digital (GPD), Lea heads GPD’s work
aiming to facilitate global South civil society engagement in international
debates on Internet policy and governance. She provides research and
analysis on a range of Internet policy issues, particularly on the
evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, and the role and position
of key states in the global South within the current debates on global
Internet governance.



She works closely with governments in the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC),
for which GPD is performing a secretariat function. As a member of the UK
Multi-stakeholder Group on Internet Governance (MAGIG), she has been
participating in the consultation processes with the UK government on
international Internet freedom issues and the potential implications of
international discussions on Internet governance since March 2013.



Originally from Croatia, Lea holds an MSc in Global Governance and Ethics
from University College London and an MA in Comparative Literature and
Hispanic Studies from the University of Zagreb. She is fluent in English,
Spanish and Croatian.



Areas of interest: *evolution of the internet governance ecosystem,
internet & foreign policy, geo-politics of the internet, the WSIS +10
review process and the role of the ITU.*

------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref1> At the IGF in Istanbul, I have participated in organising
two workshops – WS 153: Institutionalising the “Clearing House” Function
and WS 95: Working together – initiatives to map and frame IG.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the process:
>
> * Avri Doria
> * Lea Kaspar
> * John Dada
> * Matthew Shears
> * Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>
> Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final
> nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so to
> send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
>  This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>
> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>
> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and wish
> to accept, please do so either on list or by email to jmalcolm at eff.org.
>
> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>
> CRITERIA
>
>    - Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>    working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively
>    on behalf of public interest concerns.
>    - Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>    networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where
>    appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>    - Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>    - Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>    constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>
> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
> process.
>
>
> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>
>  --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140928/8c12c10d/attachment.htm>

From skiden at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 04:24:37 2014
From: skiden at gmail.com (Sarah Kiden)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:24:37 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Nomination to MAG
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6h3BhG+922X0xz1_6-76s8_+rpHS8jfhnvxw54y4Ay=FA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD_dc6gQ2Fm+W5DP-GRRsJod_THBFPBE6Wxuov38xpEf-4vVJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD_dc6h3BhG+922X0xz1_6-76s8_+rpHS8jfhnvxw54y4Ay=FA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABKLyKjKLs-OPuo8SQVagCQw6vB1oGeaiWRYbpAvSs25OMdXGA@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Seun. I would also like to add my voice and endorse Ephraim's
nomination.

Best,
Sarah

On Thursday, September 25, 2014, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> <apologies for cross-posting>
>
> Just received a teaser about my using uninterpreted acronyms ;). So I am
> reiterating here that my nomination is to  the Internet governance forum
> (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout
>
> Cheers!
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 25 Sep 2014 05:27, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','seun.ojedeji at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> I wish to submit the following nomination
>>
>> Name: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>>
>> Region of residence: Africa
>>
>> Nationality: Kenya
>>
>> Gender: Male
>>
>> Ephraim brings a youth from developing countries perspective. He is a
>> member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition on
>> Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF). He is an Internet
>> Governance Reform Fellow at Access (accessnow.org) and an affiliate
>> at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (created by the Center for Global
>> Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the
>> University of Pennsylvania)
>>
>> He is a previous attendee at IGF at both the global and African regional
>> level and more recently in Istanbul, he has engaged assertively as a
>> panelist on Developing countries participation in global IG, Youth and Net
>> Neutrality issues in developing countries.
>>
>> In addition, he is a fellow of the African School on Internet Governance
>> in South Africa (run by APC and NEPAD).
>>
>> Ephraim brings with him a wealth of experience on engaging with various
>> stakeholders from the developing world perspective.
>>
>> Regards
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140929/5ed6d336/attachment.htm>

From imran at IGFPAK.org  Mon Sep 29 06:50:22 2014
From: imran at IGFPAK.org (Imran Ahmed SHAH)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:50:22 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org>
Message-ID: <006101cfdbd3$2cb7a910$8626fb30$@IGFPAK.org>

Dear Jeremy,

Please also include my name in the list of candidates for IGF MAG 2015.

My name may also be considered to be reviewed by Best Bits for the
nomination.

 

I will arrange to send the statement shortly.

 

Thanking you and Best Regards

 

Imran Ahmed Shah

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 2:03 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)

 

So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the process:

 

* Avri Doria
* Lea Kaspar
* John Dada
* Matthew Shears
* Ephraim Percy Kenyanito

 

Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final
nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so to
send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?

 

Thanks.

 

On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:





This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF
Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).  

This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30

If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and wish
to accept, please do so either on list or by email to jmalcolm at eff.org. 

Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of residence
and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address each of the
selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee
meets each of the individual selection criteria.

CRITERIA

*	Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on
behalf of public interest concerns.
*	Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where
appropriate) on MAG discussions.
*	Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
*	Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
constructively in the MAG deliberations. 

Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
process.


Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org <https://eff.org/> 
jmalcolm at eff.org
 
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
 
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

-- 

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

 

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140929/575d0866/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Mon Sep 29 07:54:20 2014
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:54:20 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org>
Message-ID: <5429486C.6050301@cdt.org>

Hi Jeremy, all

Below please find my personal statement in support of my MAG nomination.

Name: Matthew Shears

Nationality and country of residence: UK

Gender: Male

I have been an active member of Best Bits and advocated for civil 
society interests since the Baku meeting of the IGF.   I helped 
contribute to civil society preparatory work for the WCIT and to civil 
society coordination on the ground in Dubai.  My engagement in ITU 
related activities of concern to civil society continued at the WTPF, 
where I participated in the work of the Independent Expert Group and the 
WTPF itself (and gave the closing civil society statement 
<http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/statements/wtpf-13-cdt-closing-en.pdf>). 
I have participated in UNESCO's multi-stakeholder review of the WSIS+10 
and in the ITU's WSIS+10 MPP process alongside a small number of civil 
society representatives, working hard to retain references to human 
rights, people centered and inclusive governance, multi-stakeholderism, 
access and other issues of central importance to civil society (I also 
spoke to these issues in my statement 
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/ps/doc/PolicyStatementsSessionOne-C/Mr.Matthew_Shears.pdf> 
at the WSIS+10 HLE).  I participated in the Best Bits preparatory work 
for NETmundial, leading on the Best Bits human rights principles 
submission 
<http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles-and-human-rights/107>, 
and participated actively in the event itself helping to shape civil 
society's engagement.   I am also involved in the work of the Freedom 
Online Coalition.

I have been a MAG member before, from 2006 - 2008 (when I was with the 
Internet Society), and wish to return to the MAG as I firmly believe 
that the IGF must evolve, be strengthened and ensure that its mandate is 
renewed in 2015.  I believe that civil society's voice needs to be 
strengthened in the MAG, and the aspirations of all stakeholders in the 
MAG emboldened.   I will work to ensure that civil society in the MAG is 
coordinated and vocal in support of its goals for the IGF.

I have actively participated in five of the nine IGFs, most recently the 
IGFs in Baku, Bali and 
Istanbul<https://cdt.org/blog/reflections-on-the-internet-governance-forum-in-istanbul/>. 
I have also participated in the regional Africa IGFs in Cairo and 
Nairobi, and IGF USA this past summer.   I have attended most of the 
recent preparatory sessions for the IGF and am familiar with the 
operating mechanisms of the MAG.  As someone who has worked in this 
space from the WSIS Tunis phase (2005), I am very familiar with and have 
worked with many stakeholder representatives in the IGF and elsewhere.  
I would also bring this experience to build common purpose across 
stakeholders to help achieve civil society's goals and to take the IGF 
forward.

Additional detail:

Matthew Shears leads the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Global 
Internet Policy and Human Rights (GIPHR) activities. A UK national, 
Matthew has extensive experience in Internet and telecommunications 
policy and governance in the non-profit, public and private sectors.

Matthew has worked for the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton in 
New York, the United States Mission to the European Union in Brussels, 
AT&T Europe as their Regional Director for International Public Affairs, 
broadband satellite start-up Teledesic as European Affairs Director and 
Cisco Systems as the Government Affairs Director for Europe, Middle East 
and Africa.

 From 2005 through 2009, Matthew was the Internet Society’s Public 
Policy Director, responsible for building the global policy team and 
representing the organization during the Tunis phase of the WSIS, at ITU 
Telecom World and at the Internet Governance Forum. From 2006-2008 he 
was a member of the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Group on Internet 
governance.

Matthew received his MSc in European Studies from the London School of 
Economics and his BA in International Affairs from George Washington 
University.


Many thanks!

Matthew


On 9/27/2014 10:03 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the process:
>
> * Avri Doria
> * Lea Kaspar
> * John Dada
> * Matthew Shears
> * Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>
> Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final 
> nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so 
> to send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org 
> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for 
>> the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>
>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil 
>> society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and 
>> Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the 
>> above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>
>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and 
>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to 
>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>
>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of 
>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically 
>> address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and 
>> evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection 
>> criteria.
>>
>> CRITERIA
>>
>>   * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>     working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>>     assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>   * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>     networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>>     where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>   * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>   * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>     constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>
>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this 
>> process.
>>
>>
>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of 
>> candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140929/6b8cd444/attachment.htm>

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Mon Sep 29 08:08:28 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:08:28 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <5429486C.6050301@cdt.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
	<5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org>
	<5429486C.6050301@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwq_WZmvkqXZmUB+7oXGqO20Tn8XbhxxTwbR4NsASTCpbQ@mail.gmail.com>

I believe Mattew Shears will bring a wealth of experience to the IF
process and support his nomination to the MAG.

On 29/09/2014, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> Hi Jeremy, all
>
> Below please find my personal statement in support of my MAG nomination.
>
> Name: Matthew Shears
>
> Nationality and country of residence: UK
>
> Gender: Male
>
> I have been an active member of Best Bits and advocated for civil
> society interests since the Baku meeting of the IGF.   I helped
> contribute to civil society preparatory work for the WCIT and to civil
> society coordination on the ground in Dubai.  My engagement in ITU
> related activities of concern to civil society continued at the WTPF,
> where I participated in the work of the Independent Expert Group and the
> WTPF itself (and gave the closing civil society statement
> <http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/statements/wtpf-13-cdt-closing-en.pdf>).
>
> I have participated in UNESCO's multi-stakeholder review of the WSIS+10
> and in the ITU's WSIS+10 MPP process alongside a small number of civil
> society representatives, working hard to retain references to human
> rights, people centered and inclusive governance, multi-stakeholderism,
> access and other issues of central importance to civil society (I also
> spoke to these issues in my statement
> <http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/ps/doc/PolicyStatementsSessionOne-C/Mr.Matthew_Shears.pdf>
>
> at the WSIS+10 HLE).  I participated in the Best Bits preparatory work
> for NETmundial, leading on the Best Bits human rights principles
> submission
> <http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles-and-human-rights/107>,
>
> and participated actively in the event itself helping to shape civil
> society's engagement.   I am also involved in the work of the Freedom
> Online Coalition.
>
> I have been a MAG member before, from 2006 - 2008 (when I was with the
> Internet Society), and wish to return to the MAG as I firmly believe
> that the IGF must evolve, be strengthened and ensure that its mandate is
> renewed in 2015.  I believe that civil society's voice needs to be
> strengthened in the MAG, and the aspirations of all stakeholders in the
> MAG emboldened.   I will work to ensure that civil society in the MAG is
> coordinated and vocal in support of its goals for the IGF.
>
> I have actively participated in five of the nine IGFs, most recently the
> IGFs in Baku, Bali and
> Istanbul<https://cdt.org/blog/reflections-on-the-internet-governance-forum-in-istanbul/>.
>
> I have also participated in the regional Africa IGFs in Cairo and
> Nairobi, and IGF USA this past summer.   I have attended most of the
> recent preparatory sessions for the IGF and am familiar with the
> operating mechanisms of the MAG.  As someone who has worked in this
> space from the WSIS Tunis phase (2005), I am very familiar with and have
> worked with many stakeholder representatives in the IGF and elsewhere.
> I would also bring this experience to build common purpose across
> stakeholders to help achieve civil society's goals and to take the IGF
> forward.
>
> Additional detail:
>
> Matthew Shears leads the Center for Democracy and Technology's Global
> Internet Policy and Human Rights (GIPHR) activities. A UK national,
> Matthew has extensive experience in Internet and telecommunications
> policy and governance in the non-profit, public and private sectors.
>
> Matthew has worked for the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton in
> New York, the United States Mission to the European Union in Brussels,
> AT&T Europe as their Regional Director for International Public Affairs,
> broadband satellite start-up Teledesic as European Affairs Director and
> Cisco Systems as the Government Affairs Director for Europe, Middle East
> and Africa.
>
>  From 2005 through 2009, Matthew was the Internet Society's Public
> Policy Director, responsible for building the global policy team and
> representing the organization during the Tunis phase of the WSIS, at ITU
> Telecom World and at the Internet Governance Forum. From 2006-2008 he
> was a member of the UN Secretary General's Advisory Group on Internet
> governance.
>
> Matthew received his MSc in European Studies from the London School of
> Economics and his BA in International Affairs from George Washington
> University.
>
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 9/27/2014 10:03 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the
>> process:
>>
>> * Avri Doria
>> * Lea Kaspar
>> * John Dada
>> * Matthew Shears
>> * Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>>
>> Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final
>> nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so
>> to send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for
>>> the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>>
>>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil
>>> society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and
>>> Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the
>>> above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>>
>>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>>
>>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically
>>> address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and
>>> evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection
>>> criteria.
>>>
>>> CRITERIA
>>>
>>>   * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>>     working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>>>     assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>>   * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>>     networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>>>     where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>>   * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>>   * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>>     constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>>
>>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>>> process.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of
>>> candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>


-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

The best athletes never started as the best athletes.
You have to think anyway, so why not think big? - Donald Trump.
"You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky.
Tackle the biggest frog first.
I will persist until I succeed - Og Mandino.

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Mon Sep 29 08:10:58 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:10:58 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <5429486C.6050301@cdt.org>
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org>
	<5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org>
	<5429486C.6050301@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwrnYk1w=nqew16aAM5ULBQfNdhBLWUk+zwf4LvhQsRVSw@mail.gmail.com>

I believe Mattew Shears will bring a wealth of experience to the IF
process and support his nomination to the MAG.

On 29/09/2014, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> Hi Jeremy, all
>
> Below please find my personal statement in support of my MAG nomination.
>
> Name: Matthew Shears
>
> Nationality and country of residence: UK
>
> Gender: Male
>
> I have been an active member of Best Bits and advocated for civil
> society interests since the Baku meeting of the IGF.   I helped
> contribute to civil society preparatory work for the WCIT and to civil
> society coordination on the ground in Dubai.  My engagement in ITU
> related activities of concern to civil society continued at the WTPF,
> where I participated in the work of the Independent Expert Group and the
> WTPF itself (and gave the closing civil society statement
> <http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/statements/wtpf-13-cdt-closing-en.pdf>).
>
> I have participated in UNESCO's multi-stakeholder review of the WSIS+10
> and in the ITU's WSIS+10 MPP process alongside a small number of civil
> society representatives, working hard to retain references to human
> rights, people centered and inclusive governance, multi-stakeholderism,
> access and other issues of central importance to civil society (I also
> spoke to these issues in my statement
> <http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/ps/doc/PolicyStatementsSessionOne-C/Mr.Matthew_Shears.pdf>
>
> at the WSIS+10 HLE).  I participated in the Best Bits preparatory work
> for NETmundial, leading on the Best Bits human rights principles
> submission
> <http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles-and-human-rights/107>,
>
> and participated actively in the event itself helping to shape civil
> society's engagement.   I am also involved in the work of the Freedom
> Online Coalition.
>
> I have been a MAG member before, from 2006 - 2008 (when I was with the
> Internet Society), and wish to return to the MAG as I firmly believe
> that the IGF must evolve, be strengthened and ensure that its mandate is
> renewed in 2015.  I believe that civil society's voice needs to be
> strengthened in the MAG, and the aspirations of all stakeholders in the
> MAG emboldened.   I will work to ensure that civil society in the MAG is
> coordinated and vocal in support of its goals for the IGF.
>
> I have actively participated in five of the nine IGFs, most recently the
> IGFs in Baku, Bali and
> Istanbul<https://cdt.org/blog/reflections-on-the-internet-governance-forum-in-istanbul/>.
>
> I have also participated in the regional Africa IGFs in Cairo and
> Nairobi, and IGF USA this past summer.   I have attended most of the
> recent preparatory sessions for the IGF and am familiar with the
> operating mechanisms of the MAG.  As someone who has worked in this
> space from the WSIS Tunis phase (2005), I am very familiar with and have
> worked with many stakeholder representatives in the IGF and elsewhere.
> I would also bring this experience to build common purpose across
> stakeholders to help achieve civil society's goals and to take the IGF
> forward.
>
> Additional detail:
>
> Matthew Shears leads the Center for Democracy and Technology's Global
> Internet Policy and Human Rights (GIPHR) activities. A UK national,
> Matthew has extensive experience in Internet and telecommunications
> policy and governance in the non-profit, public and private sectors.
>
> Matthew has worked for the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton in
> New York, the United States Mission to the European Union in Brussels,
> AT&T Europe as their Regional Director for International Public Affairs,
> broadband satellite start-up Teledesic as European Affairs Director and
> Cisco Systems as the Government Affairs Director for Europe, Middle East
> and Africa.
>
>  From 2005 through 2009, Matthew was the Internet Society's Public
> Policy Director, responsible for building the global policy team and
> representing the organization during the Tunis phase of the WSIS, at ITU
> Telecom World and at the Internet Governance Forum. From 2006-2008 he
> was a member of the UN Secretary General's Advisory Group on Internet
> governance.
>
> Matthew received his MSc in European Studies from the London School of
> Economics and his BA in International Affairs from George Washington
> University.
>
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 9/27/2014 10:03 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the
>> process:
>>
>> * Avri Doria
>> * Lea Kaspar
>> * John Dada
>> * Matthew Shears
>> * Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>>
>> Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final
>> nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so
>> to send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for
>>> the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>>
>>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil
>>> society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and
>>> Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the
>>> above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>>
>>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>>
>>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically
>>> address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and
>>> evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection
>>> criteria.
>>>
>>> CRITERIA
>>>
>>>   * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>>     working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
>>>     assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>>   * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>>     networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
>>>     where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>>   * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>>   * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>>     constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>>
>>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>>> process.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of
>>> candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>


-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

The best athletes never started as the best athletes.
You have to think anyway, so why not think big? - Donald Trump.
"You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky.
Tackle the biggest frog first.
I will persist until I succeed - Og Mandino.

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Sep 29 12:14:13 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:14:13 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or
 not
In-Reply-To: <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com>
References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net>
 <148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <5427CE09.6000208@itforchange.net>
 <148bb9c3268.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <21544.21445.163275.985111@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.133.1642081872.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

At 20:30 28/09/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
>I really don't get this "multi-stakeholder" model and don't see how 
>it can lead to anything but what I describe.

Barry,

there is something we need to accept. The interrnet does not belong 
to everyone: it is everyone.

This is why any strategy, behaviour, thinking which considers it as 
something you can control outside of the others' people accepted 
social forms of governance (administration, justice, police, society, 
army, etc.  etc.) will technically fail at some stage. People do not 
want deregulation they want protection of their life, interests, liberty.

This means that when the US denigrates "governments", they actually 
virtually invade their country.
They may see it as a "liberation" of the country's people, but the 
"liberated" people - having this way got the liberty to purchase US 
goods in US dollars - may not see it that way and retaliate in their 
own different ways. It seems that for a couple of decades the US 
should have understood it.

Now, the US are not the only would be invaders.
Others may also want to politically oppose the US interests in 
illegitimate manners, and the US have an full legitimacy to counter 
them or to prevent their agression.

This is the normal diplomatic process. The problem is that 
globalization has raised the physical war threshold and replaced it 
it by new forms of wars including brain washing, financial crisis, 
cyberwarfare, cultural influence, righte and duty to intervene, etc. 
and the time-space relation has made precautionary conterwars 
something rather new we do not fully understand yet.

We have to accept that we are at war. And that this war is rather new 
because it is global: eveyone is at war with everyone. This war is 
also rather new because the engaged powers are public, private and 
civil (some XIIth century kind of warring) with the economical and 
financial emergence of new kind of sovereignties (Apple, Google, 
Microsoft, etc. in our area). It enlists many mercenaries, 
disembarking the in the meetings (i.e. battles of influence). Etc.

IMHO the solution we have is to keep ourselves outside of their 
global coalitions, actions, battles, etc. and look at our local 
interests, minding our own business rather than the ones of the big 
network leaders, and protecting ourselves from their plundering. This 
is why the VGN notion and management is so important.

They keep saying the internet belongs to every of "us" (us bing the 
"stakeholders"', the net nobility)?
Let make it work as being every of us (the network commoners).

How that? May be can the techies on the list to join the 
http://mycann.org effort to discuss the mycann-plug-in. Be you own 
VGN master or member.
Some said "a client not a consumer".

Why to waste time and money at attending their meetings instead of 
spending this time and money at being fee and self-protected ?

jfc



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140929/fa8b117a/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Mon Sep  1 06:08:09 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:38:09 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <9A7041F3-32E1-4D61-AB90-734FAD9D50CD@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
	<CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org>
	<5404308C.5030302@apc.org>
	<2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org>
	<54043E30.8040809@cdt.org>
	<9A7041F3-32E1-4D61-AB90-734FAD9D50CD@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBKqXcj4Z-dxXA5iVjcPFFY8ppn-WEDdP7ZVMMe5mii7Q@mail.gmail.com>

The way I understood it, the unanimity at the Best Bits meeting was for a
permanent IGF that would be reformed and strengthened. Simple permanence
seemed considerably more controversial - or did I misunderstand that?

A statement across stakeholder groups saying the former could be very
powerful, I agree. Jeanette, can you maybe clarify whether this is what is
intended, or whether that statement would simply advocare for permanence
instead?

Thanks,
Anja
On Sep 1, 2014 12:54 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" <
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Could it be possible to have a draft before sending +1 around? I think
> Jeremy's comment is rather critical:
> "*but I'm not sure whether people realized they would be supporting a
> broader statement covering other points*"
>
> Having a statement saying that "people at BB support the idea of renewing
> the IGF mandate" would be a statement of poor impact, showing no real
> willingness to go beyond what has lead the current IGF in some sort of
> dead-end, both politically and intellectually.
>
> It might not be that difficult to create unanimity (and not just consensus
> of XX's type or YY's type) on some of IGF challenges, but that would
> definitely help to work with clarity from the very beginning.
>
> Looking forward.
>
> JC
>
>
> Le 1 sept. 2014 à 11:36, Matthew Shears a écrit :
>
>  I support Jeremy's point on two statements - particularly if the one on a
> permanent mandate is multi-stakeholder.
>
> On 9/1/2014 12:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:38 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi - I agree with the idea of a joint statement making the IGF permanent
> However, I would point out that yesterday at the Best Bits meeting we
> agreed to make a statement saying more than just that the IGF should be
> made permanent - we also were to preparea a statement on other issues and a
> smaller group had started notes on these during the meeting on the meeting
> etherpad https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y at lines 330-339
> These still need more work -  a small group volunteered to work on
> developing these into a statement that would be sent to this list for
> comment and a call for support (myself, Dixie, Jeremy, Carolina - maybe one
> or two others?)
>
>
>  Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the permanent
> mandate of the IGF, but I'm not sure whether people realised they would be
> supporting a broader statement covering other points (such as "concern at
> the number of new processes", which seems contentious to me, although I
> personally agree with it).  Can we have two separate outputs?  ie. I think
> there would be value in issuing a consensus statement on the renewal of the
> IGF, and putting the other paragraphs into an optional sign-on statement if
> they are more contentious and might detract from the unanimity of the
> message about extension of the IGF.
>
>   --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
>  Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
>  :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/b4c8dbed/attachment.htm>

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 18:46:54 2014
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:46:54 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeGomETifo_=Wt_5fEgob+f8N5sy8udv349DfQrFNKjTGg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy, all,

Thanks all for the endorsements and more especially from the young people
and those from the global south as this are two constituencies that I am
blessed to be part of.

Please find my somewhat long and detailed statement below.

Name: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito

Region of residence: Africa

Nationality:
​Kenyan

Gender: Male

Personal statement and IG-related work:

I am a Policy Fellow working with the Policy team for Access (
https://www.accessnow.org/ ), where I focus on the connection between
internet policy and human rights and specifically works on Internet
Governance Reforms. Since joining Access, I have extensively supported
Access in analyzing and contributing to international and national African
policy positions at major internet governance fora, including the recent
NetMundial meeting, the International Telecommunication Union, and the
African Union Convention on Cybersecurity, among others and have assisted
to extend and defend rights of users through  ICANN Civil Society related
events.

I a member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition on
Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF). I am also an
affiliate at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (
http://globalnetpolicy.org/about/ipo-affiliates/ ) (created by the Center
for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication
at the University of Pennsylvania).

Being only 21 years in July 2013, I was the youngest fellow of the African
School on Internet Governance, held in South Africa and run by Association
for Progressive Communications (APC) and NEPAD (the technical body of the
African Union). In the mean time, I am scheduled to graduate from Law
School in 2015 and I am also a Global Civics Student at the Global Civics
Academy (www.globalcivics.net )

Prior to Access and Internet Policy Observatory, I have worked with
Transparency International (Kenya Chapter) in the Advocacy and Legal
Advisory Centre (ALAC Eldoret Office) programme as a Law Student Intern for
two years. The programme offers free legal advice to victims and witnesses
of corruption and at the same time empower members of the Kenyan public to
advocate for transparency and accountability in management of public
affairs and is active in advocating for Freedom of Information and Data
Protection Laws in Kenya.

​Post IGF 2011 in Nairobi Kenya, Transparency International-Kenya has
played active role in using ICTs in human rights, to the point of
organizing a hack-a-thon which brings developers together to through a
weekend marathon of developing apps that can be used in human rights work.
The programme also uses a toll free call centre, social media and FM radio
programmes to empower and promote community participation in monitoring
public service delivery.

I am a previous attendee at IGF at (as an on-site participant and remotely)
both at the global and African regional level and more recently in the last
IGF 2014 Istanbul, I engaged assertively as an on-site panellist on the
following sessions:

Developing countries participation in global IG-
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/114

Youth Coalition on Internet Governance-
www.intgovforum.org/cms/147-igf-2014/1861-igf-2014-youth-coalition-on-internet-governance-meeting


Net Neutrality Main Session-
https://igf2014.sched.org/event/11c53224e232d7f3298247f3ec624e44 I am a
member of a number of academic, end-user and activist mailing lists, and I
plan to feed to consult report back about MAG discussions regularly.  I
plan to also write regular blog posts in assisting with this purpose.

​As a 22 year old youth, I believe that the youth are not leaders of
tomorrow but of today and involving youth in IG processes ensures that
there is no generational gap as regards to Internet Policy advancement. I
have often believe that young people ought to be at the forefront in
advancing democratic and positive institutional reform. My position is
consistent with Civil Society views such as BestBits on the need for
diversity in terms of age (bestbits.net/2014-mag-nominations/ ) and
Internet Governance Caucus that “..Targeting youth groups or the younger
generation of professionals will have, in the long run, an effective
impact..” (
http://igcaucus.org/answers-cstd-questionnaire-improvements-igf-19-november-2010
)

This gap on youth involvement in IG has repeatedly been identified during
subsequent, IGFs and more recently in IGF 2014, attendees pointed out that
youth are about 3% minority in the IGF community (September 5th 2014 11.00
Taking Stock/ Emerging issues), which is consistent with 23 November 2010
IGF MAG Meeting (http://igf.wgig.org/cms/mag/102-igf-2010/transcripts2010 )
where it was stated, “...I think that we should have an opportunity to
provide it -- to provide opportunities for youth representation from
African countries, Asian, former USSR, other countries, to make it the
IGF's better mandate...”

My views for IGF reform are that Civil Society needs to take a more
prominent role in the IGF decision making and this is outlined at this
BestBits statement:  <http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/>
<http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/> and in this IG- Caucus 2010
statement that is still relevant to-date:
http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/CSIGC.pdf

Bio

Ephraim is a Policy Fellow working with the Policy team for Access (
https://www.accessnow.org/ ), where he focuses on the connection between
internet policy and human rights and specifically works on Internet
Governance Reforms. At Access, Ephraim has enthusiastically and extensively
supported Access in analyzing and contributing to international and
national African policy positions at major internet governance fora,
including the recent NetMundial meeting, the International
Telecommunication Union, and the African Union Convention on Cybersecurity,
among others.

He is a member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition on
Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF) and is a global member
of ISOC and served as a member of 2014's Kenya Internet Governance Forum
Steering committee (http://kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/about-kigf/kigf-team).
He is also an affiliate at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (
http://globalnetpolicy.org/about/ipo-affiliates/ ) (created by the Center
for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication
at the University of Pennsylvania).

Being only 21 years in July 2013, he was the youngest graduate of the
African School on Internet Governance, held in South Africa. He also has
training in Internet Policy and Media Law from University of Oxford and
University of Pennsylvania. In the mean time, he is scheduled to graduate
from Law School in 2015 and is also a Global Civics Student at the Global
Civics Academy (www.globalcivics.net )

Ephraim has participated in ICANN as a member of Non Commercial Users
Constituency (NCUC) (www.ncuc.org/about/members/ ) and as a member of the
ICANN Fellowship alumni network. He has participated in all the 2014 ICANN
Civil Society related events and has been volunteering part of his free
time as an Independent expert at ICANN's Implementation Advisory Group for
Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (IAG-CCT) (
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-24-en ) and as a member of
the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working group (
https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/6+Membership+and+Mailing+List+Archive
)

Since 2012, Ephraim is also been an Author and Translator through various
online publications such as Global Voices Online (
http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/ephraim-kenyanito/ ), (an
international network of bloggers, translators, and citizen journalists
that follow, report, and summarize what is going on in the blogosphere in
every corner of the world.) Ephraim also write through The Daily Journalist
(http://thedailyjournalist.com/author/ephraimkenyanito/ ) and through a
personal blog, “The Diary of a Global Citizen
<http://thediaryofaglobalcitizen.wordpress.com/>” (
http://thediaryofaglobalcitizen.wordpress.com/ ). Previously he was a
Reporter and Multimedia Team member at European Journalism Centre’s
“ThinkBrigade
Project.” (http://www.thinkbrigade.org/author/ephraim.k/ )

Ephraim has also been carrying out various African Regional Integration
projects with the East African Community Secretariat (Arusha, United
Republic of Tanzania) and was an Intern at the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign
Affairs & International Trade. He also has a passion for Democratic
Governance Issues and has been involved in research and promotion of
Governance Issues through projects facilitated by Transparency
International, MercyCorps (International) and Centre for Law and Research
International (CLARION) among other diverse-range of social development
organizations.

​
​
--

Best Regards,
​​
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
@ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1


On 27 September 2014 12:03, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the process:
>
> * Avri Doria
> * Lea Kaspar
> * John Dada
> * Matthew Shears
> * Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>
> Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final
> nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so to
> send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
>  This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the
> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>
> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>
> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and wish
> to accept, please do so either on list or by email to jmalcolm at eff.org.
>
> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>
> CRITERIA
>
>    - Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>    working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively
>    on behalf of public interest concerns.
>    - Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>    networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where
>    appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>    - Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>    - Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>    constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>
> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
> process.
>
>
> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>
>  --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140930/9477d78c/attachment.htm>

From joao.caribe at me.com  Mon Sep 29 19:20:06 2014
From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:20:06 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To:  <CAHwnKeGomETifo_=Wt_5fEgob+f8N5sy8udv349DfQrFNKjTGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHwnKeGomETifo_=Wt_5fEgob+f8N5sy8udv349DfQrFNKjTGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <67A1594B-51DA-46B9-82EC-F04465E9EA06@me.com>

Count me in to support your nomination, so I worried about to not see anyone from Brazil or Latin America, and seriously think about nominate myself too. 

_
João Carlos Caribé
(021) 8761 1967
(021) 4042 7727
Skype joaocaribe
Enviado via iPad

> Em 29/09/2014, às 19:46, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito <ekenyanito at gmail.com> escreveu:
> 
> Dear Jeremy, all,
> 
> Thanks all for the endorsements and more especially from the young people and those from the global south as this are two constituencies that I am blessed to be part of.
> 
> Please find my somewhat long and detailed statement below.
> 
> Name: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
> 
> Region of residence: Africa
> 
> Nationality:
> 
> ​Kenyan
> Gender: Male
> 
> Personal statement and IG-related work:
> 
> I am a Policy Fellow working with the Policy team for Access (https://www.accessnow.org/ ), where I focus on the connection between internet policy and human rights and specifically works on Internet Governance Reforms. Since joining Access, I have extensively supported Access in analyzing and contributing to international and national African policy positions at major internet governance fora, including the recent NetMundial meeting, the International Telecommunication Union, and the African Union Convention on Cybersecurity, among others and have assisted to extend and defend rights of users through  ICANN Civil Society related events.
> 
> I a member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF). I am also an affiliate at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (http://globalnetpolicy.org/about/ipo-affiliates/ ) (created by the Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania).
> 
> Being only 21 years in July 2013, I was the youngest fellow of the African School on Internet Governance, held in South Africa and run by Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and NEPAD (the technical body of the African Union). In the mean time, I am scheduled to graduate from Law School in 2015 and I am also a Global Civics Student at the Global Civics Academy (www.globalcivics.net )
> 
> Prior to Access and Internet Policy Observatory, I have worked with Transparency International (Kenya Chapter) in the Advocacy and Legal Advisory Centre (ALAC Eldoret Office) programme as a Law Student Intern for two years. The programme offers free legal advice to victims and witnesses of corruption and at the same time empower members of the Kenyan public to advocate for transparency and accountability in management of public affairs and is active in advocating for Freedom of Information and Data Protection Laws in Kenya.
> 
> 
> ​Post IGF 2011 in Nairobi Kenya, Transparency International-Kenya has played active role in using ICTs in human rights, to the point of organizing a hack-a-thon which brings developers together to through a weekend marathon of developing apps that can be used in human rights work. The programme also uses a toll free call centre, social media and FM radio programmes to empower and promote community participation in monitoring public service delivery.
> I am a previous attendee at IGF at (as an on-site participant and remotely) both at the global and African regional level and more recently in the last IGF 2014 Istanbul, I engaged assertively as an on-site panellist on the following sessions:
> 
> Developing countries participation in global IG- http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/114
> 
> Youth Coalition on Internet Governance- www.intgovforum.org/cms/147-igf-2014/1861-igf-2014-youth-coalition-on-internet-governance-meeting  
> 
> Net Neutrality Main Session- https://igf2014.sched.org/event/11c53224e232d7f3298247f3ec624e44 I am a member of a number of academic, end-user and activist mailing lists, and I plan to feed to consult report back about MAG discussions regularly.  I plan to also write regular blog posts in assisting with this purpose.
> 
> 
> ​As a 22 year old youth, I believe that the youth are not leaders of tomorrow but of today and involving youth in IG processes ensures that there is no generational gap as regards to Internet Policy advancement. I have often believe that young people ought to be at the forefront in advancing democratic and positive institutional reform. My position is consistent with Civil Society views such as BestBits on the need for diversity in terms of age (bestbits.net/2014-mag-nominations/ ) and Internet Governance Caucus that “..Targeting youth groups or the younger generation of professionals will have, in the long run, an effective impact..” (http://igcaucus.org/answers-cstd-questionnaire-improvements-igf-19-november-2010 )
> This gap on youth involvement in IG has repeatedly been identified during subsequent, IGFs and more recently in IGF 2014, attendees pointed out that youth are about 3% minority in the IGF community (September 5th 2014 11.00 Taking Stock/ Emerging issues), which is consistent with 23 November 2010 IGF MAG Meeting (http://igf.wgig.org/cms/mag/102-igf-2010/transcripts2010 ) where it was stated, “...I think that we should have an opportunity to provide it -- to provide opportunities for youth representation from African countries, Asian, former USSR, other countries, to make it the IGF's better mandate...”
> 
> My views for IGF reform are that Civil Society needs to take a more prominent role in the IGF decision making and this is outlined at this BestBits statement:  <http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/> and in this IG- Caucus 2010 statement that is still relevant to-date: http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/CSIGC.pdf
> 
> Bio
> 
> Ephraim is a Policy Fellow working with the Policy team for Access (https://www.accessnow.org/ ), where he focuses on the connection between internet policy and human rights and specifically works on Internet Governance Reforms. At Access, Ephraim has enthusiastically and extensively supported Access in analyzing and contributing to international and national African policy positions at major internet governance fora, including the recent NetMundial meeting, the International Telecommunication Union, and the African Union Convention on Cybersecurity, among others.
> 
> He is a member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF) and is a global member of ISOC and served as a member of 2014's Kenya Internet Governance Forum Steering committee (http://kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/about-kigf/kigf-team). He is also an affiliate at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (http://globalnetpolicy.org/about/ipo-affiliates/ ) (created by the Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania).
> 
> Being only 21 years in July 2013, he was the youngest graduate of the African School on Internet Governance, held in South Africa. He also has training in Internet Policy and Media Law from University of Oxford and University of Pennsylvania. In the mean time, he is scheduled to graduate from Law School in 2015 and is also a Global Civics Student at the Global Civics Academy (www.globalcivics.net )
> 
> Ephraim has participated in ICANN as a member of Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) (www.ncuc.org/about/members/ ) and as a member of the ICANN Fellowship alumni network. He has participated in all the 2014 ICANN Civil Society related events and has been volunteering part of his free time as an Independent expert at ICANN's Implementation Advisory Group for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (IAG-CCT) (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-24-en ) and as a member of the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working group (https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/6+Membership+and+Mailing+List+Archive )
> 
> Since 2012, Ephraim is also been an Author and Translator through various online publications such as Global Voices Online (http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/ephraim-kenyanito/ ), (an international network of bloggers, translators, and citizen journalists that follow, report, and summarize what is going on in the blogosphere in every corner of the world.) Ephraim also write through The Daily Journalist (http://thedailyjournalist.com/author/ephraimkenyanito/ ) and through a personal blog, “The Diary of a Global Citizen” (http://thediaryofaglobalcitizen.wordpress.com/ ). Previously he was a Reporter and Multimedia Team member at European Journalism Centre’s “ThinkBrigade Project.” (http://www.thinkbrigade.org/author/ephraim.k/ )
> 
> Ephraim has also been carrying out various African Regional Integration projects with the East African Community Secretariat (Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania) and was an Intern at the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International Trade. He also has a passion for Democratic Governance Issues and has been involved in research and promotion of Governance Issues through projects facilitated by Transparency International, MercyCorps (International) and Centre for Law and Research International (CLARION) among other diverse-range of social development organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> ​​--
> Best Regards,
> 
> ​​Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
> Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
> @ekenyanito
> PGP: E6BA8DC1
> 
>> On 27 September 2014 12:03, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>> So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the process:
>> 
>> * Avri Doria
>> * Lea Kaspar
>> * John Dada
>> * Matthew Shears
>> * Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>> 
>> Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so to send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).  
>>> 
>>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>> 
>>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to jmalcolm at eff.org. 
>>> 
>>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>>> 
>>> CRITERIA
>>> Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>> Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>> Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>> Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this process.
>>> 
>>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> 
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>> 
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>> 
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> 
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140929/0fafdcfa/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Sep 29 20:56:45 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:56:45 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <67A1594B-51DA-46B9-82EC-F04465E9EA06@me.com>
References: <CAHwnKeGomETifo_=Wt_5fEgob+f8N5sy8udv349DfQrFNKjTGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <67A1594B-51DA-46B9-82EC-F04465E9EA06@me.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk24sZCJ3nNLQi1BgWgRfCEY4n=ZKLXdj_pgk4dwWBh5GQ@mail.gmail.com>

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy of Chennai, India, has indicated to me his
interest, thus I would like to nominate him. I trust he will foward his SOI
directly to you Jeremy.

joly

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:20 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé <joao.caribe at me.com>
wrote:

> Count me in to support your nomination, so I worried about to not see
> anyone from Brazil or Latin America, and seriously think about nominate
> myself too.
>
> _
> João Carlos Caribé
> (021) 8761 1967
> (021) 4042 7727
> Skype joaocaribe
> Enviado via iPad
>
> Em 29/09/2014, às 19:46, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito <ekenyanito at gmail.com>
> escreveu:
>
> Dear Jeremy, all,
>
> Thanks all for the endorsements and more especially from the young people
> and those from the global south as this are two constituencies that I am
> blessed to be part of.
>
> Please find my somewhat long and detailed statement below.
>
> Name: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>
> Region of residence: Africa
>
> Nationality:
> ​Kenyan
>
> Gender: Male
>
> Personal statement and IG-related work:
>
> I am a Policy Fellow working with the Policy team for Access (
> https://www.accessnow.org/ ), where I focus on the connection between
> internet policy and human rights and specifically works on Internet
> Governance Reforms. Since joining Access, I have extensively supported
> Access in analyzing and contributing to international and national African
> policy positions at major internet governance fora, including the recent
> NetMundial meeting, the International Telecommunication Union, and the
> African Union Convention on Cybersecurity, among others and have assisted
> to extend and defend rights of users through  ICANN Civil Society related
> events.
>
> I a member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition on
> Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF). I am also an
> affiliate at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (
> http://globalnetpolicy.org/about/ipo-affiliates/ ) (created by the Center
> for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication
> at the University of Pennsylvania).
>
> Being only 21 years in July 2013, I was the youngest fellow of the African
> School on Internet Governance, held in South Africa and run by Association
> for Progressive Communications (APC) and NEPAD (the technical body of the
> African Union). In the mean time, I am scheduled to graduate from Law
> School in 2015 and I am also a Global Civics Student at the Global Civics
> Academy (www.globalcivics.net )
>
> Prior to Access and Internet Policy Observatory, I have worked with
> Transparency International (Kenya Chapter) in the Advocacy and Legal
> Advisory Centre (ALAC Eldoret Office) programme as a Law Student Intern for
> two years. The programme offers free legal advice to victims and witnesses
> of corruption and at the same time empower members of the Kenyan public to
> advocate for transparency and accountability in management of public
> affairs and is active in advocating for Freedom of Information and Data
> Protection Laws in Kenya.
>
> ​Post IGF 2011 in Nairobi Kenya, Transparency International-Kenya has
> played active role in using ICTs in human rights, to the point of
> organizing a hack-a-thon which brings developers together to through a
> weekend marathon of developing apps that can be used in human rights work.
> The programme also uses a toll free call centre, social media and FM
> radio programmes to empower and promote community participation in
> monitoring public service delivery.
>
> I am a previous attendee at IGF at (as an on-site participant and
> remotely) both at the global and African regional level and more recently
> in the last IGF 2014 Istanbul, I engaged assertively as an on-site
> panellist on the following sessions:
>
> Developing countries participation in global IG-
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/114
>
> Youth Coalition on Internet Governance-
> www.intgovforum.org/cms/147-igf-2014/1861-igf-2014-youth-coalition-on-internet-governance-meeting
>
>
> Net Neutrality Main Session-
> https://igf2014.sched.org/event/11c53224e232d7f3298247f3ec624e44 I am a
> member of a number of academic, end-user and activist mailing lists, and I
> plan to feed to consult report back about MAG discussions regularly.  I
> plan to also write regular blog posts in assisting with this purpose.
>
> ​As a 22 year old youth, I believe that the youth are not leaders of
> tomorrow but of today and involving youth in IG processes ensures that
> there is no generational gap as regards to Internet Policy advancement. I
> have often believe that young people ought to be at the forefront in
> advancing democratic and positive institutional reform. My position is
> consistent with Civil Society views such as BestBits on the need for
> diversity in terms of age (bestbits.net/2014-mag-nominations/ ) and
> Internet Governance Caucus that “..Targeting youth groups or the younger
> generation of professionals will have, in the long run, an effective
> impact..” (
> http://igcaucus.org/answers-cstd-questionnaire-improvements-igf-19-november-2010
> )
>
> This gap on youth involvement in IG has repeatedly been identified during
> subsequent, IGFs and more recently in IGF 2014, attendees pointed out that
> youth are about 3% minority in the IGF community (September 5th 2014
> 11.00 Taking Stock/ Emerging issues), which is consistent with 23 November
> 2010 IGF MAG Meeting (
> http://igf.wgig.org/cms/mag/102-igf-2010/transcripts2010 ) where it was
> stated, “...I think that we should have an opportunity to provide it -- to
> provide opportunities for youth representation from African countries,
> Asian, former USSR, other countries, to make it the IGF's better mandate...”
>
> My views for IGF reform are that Civil Society needs to take a more
> prominent role in the IGF decision making and this is outlined at this
> BestBits statement:  <http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/>
> <http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/> and in this IG- Caucus 2010
> statement that is still relevant to-date:
> http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/CSIGC.pdf
>
> Bio
>
> Ephraim is a Policy Fellow working with the Policy team for Access (
> https://www.accessnow.org/ ), where he focuses on the connection between
> internet policy and human rights and specifically works on Internet
> Governance Reforms. At Access, Ephraim has enthusiastically and extensively
> supported Access in analyzing and contributing to international and
> national African policy positions at major internet governance fora,
> including the recent NetMundial meeting, the International
> Telecommunication Union, and the African Union Convention on Cybersecurity,
> among others.
>
> He is a member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition
> on Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF) and is a global
> member of ISOC and served as a member of 2014's Kenya Internet Governance
> Forum Steering committee (
> http://kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/about-kigf/kigf-team). He is also an
> affiliate at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (
> http://globalnetpolicy.org/about/ipo-affiliates/ ) (created by the Center
> for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication
> at the University of Pennsylvania).
>
> Being only 21 years in July 2013, he was the youngest graduate of the
> African School on Internet Governance, held in South Africa. He also has
> training in Internet Policy and Media Law from University of Oxford and
> University of Pennsylvania. In the mean time, he is scheduled to graduate
> from Law School in 2015 and is also a Global Civics Student at the Global
> Civics Academy (www.globalcivics.net )
>
> Ephraim has participated in ICANN as a member of Non Commercial Users
> Constituency (NCUC) (www.ncuc.org/about/members/ ) and as a member of the
> ICANN Fellowship alumni network. He has participated in all the 2014 ICANN
> Civil Society related events and has been volunteering part of his free
> time as an Independent expert at ICANN's Implementation Advisory Group
> for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (IAG-CCT) (
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-24-en ) and as a member
> of the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working group (
> https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/6+Membership+and+Mailing+List+Archive
> )
>
> Since 2012, Ephraim is also been an Author and Translator through various
> online publications such as Global Voices Online (
> http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/ephraim-kenyanito/ ), (an
> international network of bloggers, translators, and citizen journalists
> that follow, report, and summarize what is going on in the blogosphere in
> every corner of the world.) Ephraim also write through The Daily
> Journalist (http://thedailyjournalist.com/author/ephraimkenyanito/ ) and
> through a personal blog, “The Diary of a Global Citizen
> <http://thediaryofaglobalcitizen.wordpress.com/>” (
> http://thediaryofaglobalcitizen.wordpress.com/ ). Previously he was a
> Reporter and Multimedia Team member at European Journalism Centre’s “ThinkBrigade
> Project.” (http://www.thinkbrigade.org/author/ephraim.k/ )
>
> Ephraim has also been carrying out various African Regional Integration
> projects with the East African Community Secretariat (Arusha, United
> Republic of Tanzania) and was an Intern at the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign
> Affairs & International Trade. He also has a passion for Democratic
> Governance Issues and has been involved in research and promotion of
> Governance Issues through projects facilitated by Transparency
> International, MercyCorps (International) and Centre for Law and Research
> International (CLARION) among other diverse-range of social development
> organizations.
>
> ​
> ​
> --
>
> Best Regards,
> ​​
> *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
> Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
> @ekenyanito
> PGP: E6BA8DC1
>
>
> On 27 September 2014 12:03, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
>> So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the process:
>>
>> * Avri Doria
>> * Lea Kaspar
>> * John Dada
>> * Matthew Shears
>> * Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>>
>> Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final
>> nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so to
>> send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>>  This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for
>> the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>
>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>
>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>
>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>>
>> CRITERIA
>>
>>    - Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>    working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively
>>    on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>    - Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>    networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where
>>    appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>    - Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>    - Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>    constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>
>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>> process.
>>
>>
>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>
>>  --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140929/190bba9b/attachment.htm>

From iza at anr.org  Tue Sep 30 04:11:47 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:11:47 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Open Consultations MAG Meeting Online
 registration
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKjDUCMG5og4+Ufn1vcZuGp8Ju_6p6=sKw0fB28KaWiokg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AD469EEC-E615-4643-AAB6-432B4E973D05@unog.ch> <CA+YNoKi=0F4pHOrjXHn+q6FLYhVf5pwAtqcL4WAVLu=G4xwoDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <007601cfdc84$41834730$c489d590$@unog.ch> <CA+YNoKjDUCMG5og4+Ufn1vcZuGp8Ju_6p6=sKw0fB28KaWiokg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKjAgMU+GqNDWe_FX05BERQzCXamO7cAEOy9+SGaYVfF3g@mail.gmail.com>

Unless you register by Nov 15, you will not be able to participate in the
next IGF Open Consultation meeting  - Dec 1-3, according to IGF Secretariat.

It does not make sense.

izumi

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Date: 2014-09-30 17:09 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Open Consultations MAG Meeting Online registration
To: Chengetai Masango <cmasango at unog.ch>
Cc: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>


My point is not that participants have 1 1/2 months time, but it goes
against
our standard practice.

And as planned, we will have new MAG members by then, do you think they can
register
1 1/2 months in advance?

Does it mean that they will be announced well before Nov 15 for sure? Or
they got exceptional treatment?

I know it is out of your control but rather due to UN/ITU system, but still
I remain very doubtful of this arrangement; but let me hear from our
respected
colleagues.

izumi

2014-09-30 16:57 GMT+09:00 Chengetai Masango <cmasango at unog.ch>:

> Dear Izumi,
>
>
>
> Yes,
>
> There are quite a number of meetings happening both at UNOG and in the ITU
> so advanced preparation is important.
>
> They would like to get everything set up before their meetings start.
>
>
>
> We have to prepare the registrations and send them to the ITU they in turn
> have to input them into their system. (They are short staffed)
>
>
>
> Participants have a month and half to register which should be ample time…
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Chengetai
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Izumi
> AIZU
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 30 September 2014 4:19 AM
> *To:* Chengetai Masango
> *Cc:* MAG-public
> *Subject:* Re: [IGFmaglist] Open Consultations MAG Meeting Online
> registration
>
>
>
> Dear Chengetai,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the message below?
>
>
>
> BUT, does this mean no one can register after Nov 16? Online nor onsite?
>
> That is very much troublesome, in my view.
>
>
>
> Need clarification.
>
>
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-09-29 17:20 GMT+09:00 Chengetai Masango <cmasango at unog.ch>:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> The online registration for the 1-3 December Open Consultations and MAG
> meetings is now open at : https://intgovforum.org/cms/OCDecember  it will
> close on *15 November*.
>
>
>
> Please note that onsite registration will *not be possible* this time
> round due to the large volume of meetings taking place at the same time.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Chengetai
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org
>



-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org



-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140930/24521058/attachment.htm>

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 06:42:21 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:12:21 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk24sZCJ3nNLQi1BgWgRfCEY4n=ZKLXdj_pgk4dwWBh5GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHwnKeGomETifo_=Wt_5fEgob+f8N5sy8udv349DfQrFNKjTGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<67A1594B-51DA-46B9-82EC-F04465E9EA06@me.com>
	<CAM9VJk24sZCJ3nNLQi1BgWgRfCEY4n=ZKLXdj_pgk4dwWBh5GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0Et1-JOaT2LANy-FrMXenTf0oV7fQSP4docmFf+5d2_mw@mail.gmail.com>

Thank You Joly.

Jeremy,

Please accept my Statement of Interest, attached.

Thank you
Sivasubramanian M

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy of Chennai, India, has indicated to me his
> interest, thus I would like to nominate him. I trust he will foward his SOI
> directly to you Jeremy.
>
> joly
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:20 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé <joao.caribe at me.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Count me in to support your nomination, so I worried about to not see
>> anyone from Brazil or Latin America, and seriously think about nominate
>> myself too.
>>
>> _
>> João Carlos Caribé
>> (021) 8761 1967
>> (021) 4042 7727
>> Skype joaocaribe
>> Enviado via iPad
>>
>> Em 29/09/2014, às 19:46, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito <ekenyanito at gmail.com>
>> escreveu:
>>
>> Dear Jeremy, all,
>>
>> Thanks all for the endorsements and more especially from the young people
>> and those from the global south as this are two constituencies that I am
>> blessed to be part of.
>>
>> Please find my somewhat long and detailed statement below.
>>
>> Name: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>>
>> Region of residence: Africa
>>
>> Nationality:
>> ​Kenyan
>>
>> Gender: Male
>>
>> Personal statement and IG-related work:
>>
>> I am a Policy Fellow working with the Policy team for Access (
>> https://www.accessnow.org/ ), where I focus on the connection between
>> internet policy and human rights and specifically works on Internet
>> Governance Reforms. Since joining Access, I have extensively supported
>> Access in analyzing and contributing to international and national African
>> policy positions at major internet governance fora, including the recent
>> NetMundial meeting, the International Telecommunication Union, and the
>> African Union Convention on Cybersecurity, among others and have assisted
>> to extend and defend rights of users through  ICANN Civil Society related
>> events.
>>
>> I a member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition on
>> Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF). I am also an
>> affiliate at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (
>> http://globalnetpolicy.org/about/ipo-affiliates/ ) (created by the
>> Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for
>> Communication at the University of Pennsylvania).
>>
>> Being only 21 years in July 2013, I was the youngest fellow of the
>> African School on Internet Governance, held in South Africa and run by
>> Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and NEPAD (the technical
>> body of the African Union). In the mean time, I am scheduled to graduate
>> from Law School in 2015 and I am also a Global Civics Student at the Global
>> Civics Academy (www.globalcivics.net )
>>
>> Prior to Access and Internet Policy Observatory, I have worked with
>> Transparency International (Kenya Chapter) in the Advocacy and Legal
>> Advisory Centre (ALAC Eldoret Office) programme as a Law Student Intern for
>> two years. The programme offers free legal advice to victims and witnesses
>> of corruption and at the same time empower members of the Kenyan public to
>> advocate for transparency and accountability in management of public
>> affairs and is active in advocating for Freedom of Information and Data
>> Protection Laws in Kenya.
>>
>> ​Post IGF 2011 in Nairobi Kenya, Transparency International-Kenya has
>> played active role in using ICTs in human rights, to the point of
>> organizing a hack-a-thon which brings developers together to through a
>> weekend marathon of developing apps that can be used in human rights work.
>> The programme also uses a toll free call centre, social media and FM
>> radio programmes to empower and promote community participation in
>> monitoring public service delivery.
>>
>> I am a previous attendee at IGF at (as an on-site participant and
>> remotely) both at the global and African regional level and more recently
>> in the last IGF 2014 Istanbul, I engaged assertively as an on-site
>> panellist on the following sessions:
>>
>> Developing countries participation in global IG-
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/114
>>
>> Youth Coalition on Internet Governance-
>> www.intgovforum.org/cms/147-igf-2014/1861-igf-2014-youth-coalition-on-internet-governance-meeting
>>
>>
>> Net Neutrality Main Session-
>> https://igf2014.sched.org/event/11c53224e232d7f3298247f3ec624e44 I am a
>> member of a number of academic, end-user and activist mailing lists, and I
>> plan to feed to consult report back about MAG discussions regularly.  I
>> plan to also write regular blog posts in assisting with this purpose.
>>
>> ​As a 22 year old youth, I believe that the youth are not leaders of
>> tomorrow but of today and involving youth in IG processes ensures that
>> there is no generational gap as regards to Internet Policy advancement. I
>> have often believe that young people ought to be at the forefront in
>> advancing democratic and positive institutional reform. My position is
>> consistent with Civil Society views such as BestBits on the need for
>> diversity in terms of age (bestbits.net/2014-mag-nominations/ ) and
>> Internet Governance Caucus that “..Targeting youth groups or the younger
>> generation of professionals will have, in the long run, an effective
>> impact..” (
>> http://igcaucus.org/answers-cstd-questionnaire-improvements-igf-19-november-2010
>> )
>>
>> This gap on youth involvement in IG has repeatedly been identified during
>> subsequent, IGFs and more recently in IGF 2014, attendees pointed out that
>> youth are about 3% minority in the IGF community (September 5th 2014
>> 11.00 Taking Stock/ Emerging issues), which is consistent with 23 November
>> 2010 IGF MAG Meeting (
>> http://igf.wgig.org/cms/mag/102-igf-2010/transcripts2010 ) where it was
>> stated, “...I think that we should have an opportunity to provide it -- to
>> provide opportunities for youth representation from African countries,
>> Asian, former USSR, other countries, to make it the IGF's better mandate...”
>>
>> My views for IGF reform are that Civil Society needs to take a more
>> prominent role in the IGF decision making and this is outlined at this
>> BestBits statement:  <http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/>
>> <http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/> and in this IG- Caucus 2010
>> statement that is still relevant to-date:
>> http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/CSIGC.pdf
>>
>> Bio
>>
>> Ephraim is a Policy Fellow working with the Policy team for Access (
>> https://www.accessnow.org/ ), where he focuses on the connection between
>> internet policy and human rights and specifically works on Internet
>> Governance Reforms. At Access, Ephraim has enthusiastically and extensively
>> supported Access in analyzing and contributing to international and
>> national African policy positions at major internet governance fora,
>> including the recent NetMundial meeting, the International
>> Telecommunication Union, and the African Union Convention on Cybersecurity,
>> among others.
>>
>> He is a member of the interim steering committee for the Youth Coalition
>> on Internet Governance (a Dynamic Coalition of the IGF) and is a global
>> member of ISOC and served as a member of 2014's Kenya Internet Governance
>> Forum Steering committee (
>> http://kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/about-kigf/kigf-team). He is also an
>> affiliate at the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) (
>> http://globalnetpolicy.org/about/ipo-affiliates/ ) (created by the
>> Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for
>> Communication at the University of Pennsylvania).
>>
>> Being only 21 years in July 2013, he was the youngest graduate of the
>> African School on Internet Governance, held in South Africa. He also has
>> training in Internet Policy and Media Law from University of Oxford and
>> University of Pennsylvania. In the mean time, he is scheduled to graduate
>> from Law School in 2015 and is also a Global Civics Student at the Global
>> Civics Academy (www.globalcivics.net )
>>
>> Ephraim has participated in ICANN as a member of Non Commercial Users
>> Constituency (NCUC) (www.ncuc.org/about/members/ ) and as a member of
>> the ICANN Fellowship alumni network. He has participated in all the 2014
>> ICANN Civil Society related events and has been volunteering part of his
>> free time as an Independent expert at ICANN's Implementation Advisory
>> Group for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (IAG-CCT) (
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-24-en ) and as a member
>> of the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working group (
>> https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/6+Membership+and+Mailing+List+Archive
>> )
>>
>> Since 2012, Ephraim is also been an Author and Translator through various
>> online publications such as Global Voices Online (
>> http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/ephraim-kenyanito/ ), (an
>> international network of bloggers, translators, and citizen journalists
>> that follow, report, and summarize what is going on in the blogosphere in
>> every corner of the world.) Ephraim also write through The Daily
>> Journalist (http://thedailyjournalist.com/author/ephraimkenyanito/ ) and
>> through a personal blog, “The Diary of a Global Citizen
>> <http://thediaryofaglobalcitizen.wordpress.com/>” (
>> http://thediaryofaglobalcitizen.wordpress.com/ ). Previously he was a
>> Reporter and Multimedia Team member at European Journalism Centre’s “ThinkBrigade
>> Project.” (http://www.thinkbrigade.org/author/ephraim.k/ )
>>
>> Ephraim has also been carrying out various African Regional Integration
>> projects with the East African Community Secretariat (Arusha, United
>> Republic of Tanzania) and was an Intern at the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign
>> Affairs & International Trade. He also has a passion for Democratic
>> Governance Issues and has been involved in research and promotion of
>> Governance Issues through projects facilitated by Transparency
>> International, MercyCorps (International) and Centre for Law and Research
>> International (CLARION) among other diverse-range of social development
>> organizations.
>>
>> ​
>> ​
>> --
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> ​​
>> *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
>> Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
>> @ekenyanito
>> PGP: E6BA8DC1
>>
>>
>> On 27 September 2014 12:03, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>>> So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the
>>> process:
>>>
>>> * Avri Doria
>>> * Lea Kaspar
>>> * John Dada
>>> * Matthew Shears
>>> * Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
>>>
>>> Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final
>>> nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so to
>>> send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for
>>> the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).
>>>
>>> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
>>> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
>>> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
>>> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30
>>>
>>> If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and
>>> wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org.
>>>
>>> Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of
>>> residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address
>>> each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of
>>> how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria.
>>>
>>> CRITERIA
>>>
>>>    - Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
>>>    working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively
>>>    on behalf of public interest concerns.
>>>    - Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
>>>    networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where
>>>    appropriate) on MAG discussions.
>>>    - Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
>>>    - Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
>>>    constructively in the MAG deliberations.
>>>
>>> Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
>>> process.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
>>> endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.
>>>
>>>  --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org
>>>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140930/ed4f884f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sivasubramanian M Statement of Interest is serving as a Member of the IGF MAG.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 98963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140930/ed4f884f/attachment.pdf>

From imran at IGFPAK.org  Tue Sep 30 13:38:43 2014
From: imran at IGFPAK.org (Imran Ahmed SHAH)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:38:43 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org> 
Message-ID: <000001cfdcd5$634e89f0$29eb9dd0$@IGFPAK.org>

Dear Jeremy,

 

Please find herewith my SOI for IGF MAG 2015.

If you need more information, please inform.

 

Thanks and Regards

 

Imran Ahmed Shah

 

From: Imran Ahmed SHAH [mailto:imran at IGFPAK.org] 
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 3:50 PM
To: 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)

 

Dear Jeremy,

Please also include my name in the list of candidates for IGF MAG 2015.

My name may also be considered to be reviewed by Best Bits for the
nomination.

 

I will arrange to send the statement shortly.

 

Thanking you and Best Regards

 

Imran Ahmed Shah

 

From:  <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [
<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 2:03 PM
To:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)

 

So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the process:

 

* Avri Doria
* Lea Kaspar
* John Dada
* Matthew Shears
* Ephraim Percy Kenyanito

 

Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final
nominations.  Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so to
send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria?

 

Thanks.

 

On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

 

This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF
Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG).  

This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society
coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net
Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups.
Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30

If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and wish
to accept, please do so either on list or by email to
<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org. 

Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of residence
and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address each of the
selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee
meets each of the individual selection criteria.

CRITERIA

*	Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on
behalf of public interest concerns.
*	Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where
appropriate) on MAG discussions.
*	Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.
*	Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
constructively in the MAG deliberations. 

Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this
process.


Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates
endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org <https://eff.org/> 
jmalcolm at eff.org
 
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
 
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

-- 

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

 

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140930/e7174274/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SOI of Imran Ahmed Shah for IGF MAG 2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 199998 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140930/e7174274/attachment.pdf>

From avri at acm.org  Tue Sep 30 14:43:06 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:43:06 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society
 representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)
Message-ID: <542AF9BA.4010205@acm.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

This note is a follow up to Jeanette's nomination of me for IGF MAG
candidacy.


 * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups
    working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out
    assertively on behalf of public interest concerns.

Since switching from being primarily an ICT for Development researcher
to participation in Internet governance discussions at the WSIS
meeting post Geneva in 2003, I have associated with civil society and
participated as civil society in many venues.  Using the 3 way split
established in WSIS and required by the IGF, I associate with Civil
Society.  I am a member of the IGC and of the NCSG, participate in
Bestbits and work part time for APC. I have requested that APC endorse
my nomination. I believe NCSG is also considering it.

I also associate with both of the Tunis Agenda cross cutting groups:
Academia and the Internet Community.  In terms of this call for the
MAG, I am only being considered by Civil Society and would not agree
to being considered by more that one of the groups.

I believe I have been vocal and assertive in behalf of public interest
concerns as I understand them, whether they were my issues or the
issues held by others in civil society.


  * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS
    networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance
    where appropriate) on MAG discussions.

I am most willing to do so and believe that when I have had roles in
civil society, have shown that I have done so.  Reporting back to my
community (ies) is a responsibility I take seriously. I have on
occasion been slower at doing it than is optimal, but I keep trying to
improve.

While Civil Society does not come with one opinion, I think it is
important for an appointee from a stakeholder group to do her best to
make sure that the variety of the stakeholder group's views is
expressed on issues as best as possible.  One cannot just argue ones
own view, but must make sure that all views expressed in the
stakeholder group are given sufficient expression in discussions and
in consensus building.

  * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level.

I have attended all of the IGF meetings since it was created.  For the
first 5 years I attended as a member of the IGF Secretariat.  The last
few years I attended as a civil society participant.  As I have
mentioned, I also consider myself to be part of the Internet Technical
Community.  In Bali, I briefly wore a badge that indicated I was
Technical Community, but it did not feel quite right, so I got a
another badge made that said Civil Society.

I have also attended several IGF-USA and EuroDIG.

I am a member of the IGF Support Association (IGFSA) Executive Committee.


  * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and
    constructively in the MAG deliberations.

I am willing, will makes myself available, and believe that I am able
to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG.  I believe
that the MAG has lots of work to do, together with with the community,
to enable the IGF continue to improve.  It is exciting that it is
starting to work on outcomes and continuing work between annual
meetings.  This is a trend I believe must be reinforced.  I also
believe that the MAG needs to make greater use of its UN DESA advisory
capabilities to bring the community the sort of progress and processes
they expect from the IGF.


My standard bio:

Ms. Doria is an itinerant research consultant. She is a member of the
ICANN GNSO council as a representative of the Non-Commercial
Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and was previously chair of the GNSO Council.
 She is a member of the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
(WGEC) and was a member of the UN Working Group on Internet
Governance (WGIG). As a contractor she spent 5 years as a member the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat, is a part time research
associate for the Association for Progressive Communications (APC),
part time VP for Policy and Governance at dotgay LLC working with the
LGBTQI community and working with PIR to establish a secretariat for
their community advisory council. As a technologist she has been
involved in the development of Internet protocols and architectures
for over 30 years, is a participant in the IETF, and a past chair of
the IRTF Routing Research Group.  She is the author of multiple RFCs
and occasionally teaches on Internet governance subjects. Ms. Doria
was awarded the ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos award in 2014.

- --

Thanks for considering my nomination

avri

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUKvm6AAoJEOo+L8tCe36HlL4IAKMqqCsx1cLS1a3vQtMgqpOe
lnM8sulrcsOC3Bh47Ifk1Uc4f92gUGFQtmI9+b9zmabw2MR7sk+8ABmz5lRGiP90
tGiUZcikWOIA0yHH+o9tZaI2QK3lJUCOc+X1tIybnLujYjBdc5nO4iNupnEHzn4H
bh0IRdP28QseFaDaVHnjrneIcOT7ppy//Q6vWhy0q7dSJhZdEnB5WDibBytpCS0P
wpB8dRhR/ZkMpCmMUV/U2lMQBGkRCQos51qcohbdAO0x/AWbnRXlK18RB4MJPIa0
LcbPfPjY15DxIdCACjuAEc6nFNAlv7CRbZ5R3IXg6YuxpNGIN2hOcnvgv/4lq3M=
=UWmH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 18:39:10 2014
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:39:10 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Important Recommendations for CWG-WSIS -- was: Re:
 [ITAC] ITU Council Working Group on WSIS (October 2-3)/GVA
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBx=0OvPFsUSrU7B77cfBRV-UOEYPLhN9TCfs7MbsKEiDg@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:37 PM
Subject: Important Recommendations for CWG-WSIS -- was: Re: [ITAC] ITU
Council Working Group on WSIS (October 2-3)/GVA
To: "Gordon, Marian R" <GordonMR at state.gov>
Cc: "ITAC at LMLIST.STATE.GOV" <ITAC at lmlist.state.gov>, "Zoller, Julie N"
<ZollerJN at state.gov>, Paul Najarian <najarianpb at state.gov>


Below are my recommendations for the CWG on WSIS meeting.

First, for reference, see the following letter to the UN GIS on the
WSIS+10 Review, sent this past June:
http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/statements/wsis-10-letter/


Next, what's happening at this juncture:

    The WSIS+10 Review conducted this year, prior to the ITU
Plenipotentiary Conference, has articulated the status of the
Information Society project's Action Lines through a process that
combined the capture of inputs from diverse stakeholders with the
production of outcome documents for the HLE event this past June.

    This review process has emphasized the Action Lines but has not
examined how they will be affected by the way the Information Society
project represents the Internet.  It has not considered how the
confusion regarding the distinction between the Internet and other
types of networks in the project's framing documents and resolutions,
as well as in its performance measures, may affect the project's
goals.

    The CWG on WSIS recommends forwarding the outcomes of this review
process as the multistakeholder contribution to the intergovernmental
WSIS+10 review that will be conducted by the UN General Assembly next
year, along with outputs of a CSTD review to be conducted in the first
half of the year.

    However, the important concern that arises for the CWG's
recommendations, in the context of the ITU's role in the Information
Society project, has to do with the need to correct the confused
representation of the Internet in the ITU's framing documents before
they are affirmed at the Plenipotentiary Conference as an
intergovernmentally endorsed framework.

    As the US proceeds to remove US national agencies from their role
in the stewardship of the Internet, the ITU and its resolutions will
remain in place, serving as an intergovernmentally-endorsed foundation
for Internet-related concerns and activities in the international
arena.  The resolutions must therefore be corrected prior to the
conclusion of the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, to assure that the
framework we are left with does not fail to recognize the Internet's
most important characteristics, does not undermine its unique
strengths, and does not undermine the unique contributions that the
Internet brings to the goals of the Information Society.  At that
point ITU Member States, including the US, will be able to appeal to
the ITU's framework as embodying an established intergovernmental
consensus that could only be reconsidered with considerable difficulty
after the fact.  The problems in the framework that are most pertinent
to this meeting of the CWG on WSIS have to do with how the ITU's
confused representation of the Internet will affect the Information
Society's goals.  This concern must be made a part of the 10-year
review of the Information Society project before the close of the
ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference next month.

    Nothing in the frame of the CWG-WSIS's responsibilities as given
in Council Resolutions 1332 and 1334, or ITU Resolutions 102, 140,
178, or UN GA Resolution 68/302 contradicts the above considerations.
They simply fail to recognize that the Information Society project's
framing documents, and the WSIS+10 Review, lead us to a new governance
context that will allow the nature of the Internet to be reshaped
under a new basis of authority, while the frame encourages confusion
between the Internet and other IP-based networks.


Recommendations

(The latter recommendations are more concrete manifestations of the
first more abstract ones.)

1) Recognize the needs to address the ways in which the Internet
contributes to the Information Society's goals, and to clarify the
proper usage of the terms Internet, IP-based networks and
Next-generation networks in the ITU's framing resolutions, prior to
the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference and prior to transferring the
WSIS+10 Review to the CSTD and the UN General Assembly next year.

2) Recognize that unless the distinction between the Internet and
other types of networks is explicitly acknowledged and the question of
how the Internet contributes to the Action Lines is explicitly raised,
it is unlikely that the review will capture how well the project
brings the advantages of the Internet to the Action Lines.

3) Use a methodology that conducts the process of capturing the voice
of stakeholders independently from a process of articulating
forward-looking outcome documents.

    Having stakeholders both voice comments on the status of the WSIS
Action Lines and prepare outcome statements to direct the future
course of the WSIS project, in the same process, can interfere with
frank and full commentary.

    A better approach would be to break the review into a first phase
collecting comments and concerns on the Action Lines as voiced by
stakeholders, and then a separate phase by other participants
developing conclusions regarding what these inputs constitute.  Better
yet would be a second phase that translates the captured input into
quantifiable criteria for measuring progress in the future, in the
voice of stakeholders.

4) Issue a statement indicating that:

   - the WSIS+10 HLE Outcomes do not address how well the project
employs the advantages of the Internet to serve the goals of the
Information Society
   - the Information Society's performance measures do not yet address
the distinction between the Internet and other types of networks
   - the unique contributions that the Internet brings to the goals of
the Information Society need to be clarified before the completion of
WSIS+10 Review
   - the question of recognizing how the Internet and policy and
development initiatives of the Information Society affect each other
should be identified as an area for continued focus
   - performance measures that distinguish between types of networks
will help clarify the relationship between Information Society goals
and the Internet
   - the relationship between the Action Lines and the nature of the
Internet are important global references for improving connectivity
and access in the use of ICTs in promoting the objectives of the Plan
of Action and of the endorsed WSIS+10 High Level Event Outcome
Documents

    Issue this statement as a complement to the Report on the Outcomes
of the WG-WSIS meetings held since PP-10

5) Note for the benefit of CWG-WSIS some of the issues elaborated in
the analysis in my letter on how confusion regarding the nature of the
Internet can affect the Action Lines, particularly C2, C5 and C6.

6) Recommend that processes be initiated to develop our understanding
of this relationship between the Internet and the IS goals

7) Notify CWG-WSIS that

   - the ITU Plenipotentiary Resolutions need to be revised to
incorporate recognition of the difference between Internet, IP-based
networks and Next-generation networks.

        This will affect PP Resolutions 140, 178, 172 and 102, all of
which define the responsibilities of CWG-WSIS.

        The revisions needed include the following:

        The confusion of terms will need to be clarified in PP 101,
102, 133, 137 and 180.

        The activities of the ITU-T and ITU-D Sectors will need to be
defined with recognition of these distinctions in PP 178 and PP 140.
PP 122 and PP 135, which set parameters for PP 178 and PP 140
respectively, also will need to reflect these distinctions.

    - the ITU's WSIS Performance Measures need to be revised to
distinguish between open Internet networks and specialized service
networks, and to track the difference between vertically integrated
telecommunications contexts and contexts that support competitive
access to shared physical infrastructure.

        This will affect PP 172 and 131.


Seth


On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I'll likely make a few comments on these resolutions and your
> contribution to the CWG.  We need to note that any issues in terms of
> how the ITU's activities derive from 2010 PP Resolutions will need to
> be considered at the 2014 conference.  This relates to the ITU's role,
> but how to address it is a complex question that I'll be trying to
> sort out.
>
> The phone call drew to a close a bit too quickly for me to stick in my
> two cents, so noting this here.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Gordon, Marian R <GordonMR at state.gov> wrote:
>> The meeting will be held at ATT, 1120 20th Street, Conference Room 8-2 on
>> the 8th floor.  If you will be attending the meeting in person, please let
>> Amy Alvarez know, who I copy here for your convenience.   A conference
>> bridge will follow.


On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Gordon, Marian R <GordonMR at state.gov> wrote:
> For those of you who have not yet let Sally Gadsten know that you wish to be
> part of the US delegation to the ITU CWG/WSIS meeting on October 2-3, 2014,
> please do so no later than Monday, September 22nd.  Sally is copied on this
> email for you convenience.   Thanks, Marian

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Sep  1 07:15:23 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:15:23 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <076A14D8-5944-4966-B1CA-EA84E796BE8E@eff.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com> <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org> <5404308C.5030302@apc.org> <2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org> <54043E30.8040809@cdt.org> <540440BA.5070008@mail.utoronto.ca> <076A14D8-5944-4966-B1CA-EA84E796BE8E@eff.org>
Message-ID: <5404554B.9060101@wzb.eu>

Shouldn't we add "within the framework of the UN"?

My sense was last night that this is consensual too.
jeanette

Am 01.09.14 11:53, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>> I certainly am of the view that simply calling for permanancy is not
>> enough, and figuring out what the next stage of the maturity model and
>> what  it means has not achieved rough consensus (Adam spoke about this
>> this morning in the session) so we will need to split off the stuff
>> that does not have consensus and needs to be explored. Articulating
>> the themes of that would be useful though and should not be dropped IMHO.
>
> Agreed.  So far the text on IGF's permanent mandate on the Etherpad is
> very minimal and simply says "We call for the establishment of the IGF
> as a permanent multistakeholder forum with strengthened support."  There
> may be merit in keeping it this simple, so that it could be offered as
> the wording for the multi-stakeholder statement.  The longer it is, the
> more likely disagreement will keep in.  Yet, despite its simplicity, the
> message is still strong.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Sep  1 07:18:47 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:18:47 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBKqXcj4Z-dxXA5iVjcPFFY8ppn-WEDdP7ZVMMe5mii7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>	<CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com>	<5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org>	<5404308C.5030302@apc.org>	<2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org>	<54043E30.8040809@cdt.org>	<9A7041F3-32E1-4D61-AB90-734FAD9D50CD@theglobaljournal.net> <CAJqNAHBKqXcj4Z-dxXA5iVjcPFFY8ppn-WEDdP7ZVMMe5mii7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54045617.1050300@wzb.eu>

Hi Anja,

when I suggested yesterday that we should ask for the IGF to become 
permanent I referred to the specific discussion we had about the number 
of years.

However, I don't see any problems with asking for also strengthening the 
IGF. We have by now several more or less consensual ms documents that 
support such a position, not least the NetMundial statement.

jeanette

Am 01.09.14 12:08, schrieb Anja Kovacs:
> The way I understood it, the unanimity at the Best Bits meeting was for
> a permanent IGF that would be reformed and strengthened. Simple
> permanence seemed considerably more controversial - or did I
> misunderstand that?
>
> A statement across stakeholder groups saying the former could be very
> powerful, I agree. Jeanette, can you maybe clarify whether this is what
> is intended, or whether that statement would simply advocare for
> permanence instead?
>
> Thanks,
> Anja
>
> On Sep 1, 2014 12:54 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal"
> <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     Could it be possible to have a draft before sending +1 around? I
>     think Jeremy's comment is rather critical:
>     "/but I'm not sure whether people realized they would be supporting
>     a broader statement covering other points/"
>
>     Having a statement saying that "people at BB support the idea of
>     renewing the IGF mandate" would be a statement of poor impact,
>     showing no real willingness to go beyond what has lead the current
>     IGF in some sort of dead-end, both politically and intellectually.
>
>     It might not be that difficult to create unanimity (and not just
>     consensus of XX's type or YY's type) on some of IGF challenges, but
>     that would definitely help to work with clarity from the very beginning.
>
>     Looking forward.
>
>     JC
>
>
>     Le 1 sept. 2014 à 11:36, Matthew Shears a écrit :
>
>>     I support Jeremy's point on two statements - particularly if the
>>     one on a permanent mandate is multi-stakeholder.
>>
>>     On 9/1/2014 12:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>     On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:38 AM, joy <joy at apc.org
>>>     <mailto:joy at apc.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>     Hi - I agree with the idea of a joint statement making the IGF
>>>>     permanent
>>>>     However, I would point out that yesterday at the Best Bits
>>>>     meeting we agreed to make a statement saying more than just that
>>>>     the IGF should be made permanent - we also were to preparea a
>>>>     statement on other issues and a smaller group had started notes
>>>>     on these during the meeting on the meeting etherpad
>>>>     https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y at lines 330-339
>>>>     These still need more work -  a small group volunteered to work
>>>>     on developing these into a statement that would be sent to this
>>>>     list for comment and a call for support (myself, Dixie, Jeremy,
>>>>     Carolina - maybe one or two others?)
>>>
>>>     Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the
>>>     permanent mandate of the IGF, but I'm not sure whether people
>>>     realised they would be supporting a broader statement covering
>>>     other points (such as "concern at the number of new processes",
>>>     which seems contentious to me, although I personally agree with
>>>     it).  Can we have two separate outputs?  ie. I think there would
>>>     be value in issuing a consensus statement on the renewal of the
>>>     IGF, and putting the other paragraphs into an optional sign-on
>>>     statement if they are more contentious and might detract from the
>>>     unanimity of the message about extension of the IGF.
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Jeremy Malcolm
>>>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>     https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
>>>     jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>
>>>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>>
>>>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>           bestbits at lists.bestbits.net  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>           http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>     --
>>     Matthew Shears
>>     Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>     Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>     mshears at cdt.org  <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>     + 44 771 247 2987  <tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 03:35:36 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 03:35:36 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA_1xLV7K-_sqQxjsCRYL59UorkFqDtqPQrKd4xSbNUVFg@mail.gmail.com>

Public Knowledge supports.
On Sep 1, 2014 10:29 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>
> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
> statement.)
>
> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an
> idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with
> this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil
> society.
>
> jeanette
>
> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/6a454c7c/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 06:36:52 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:36:52 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_i-_bO_O+0NS2bdJn+ko=HDOZEH=yjuk9EM5YqHczrPg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all:

Jeanette, your post has come through onto the IGC list as far as I can see.

To respond to the whole thread so far, I think a simple call for permanency
would be weak. Doesn't the NETmundial declaration already talk about
strengthening IGF? So at the very least, a multistakeholder call would have
to include permanent IGF with strengthened support. And unless this is
threat to maintaining cohesion across stakeholder groups which might be
willing to support such call, I'd go as far as introducing language along
the lines of what Anne Jellema proposes (expanded, stable, predictable
funding that is transparently accounted for.)

If there are stakeholders who are against the latter language, or if there
are broader points (as alluded to earlier) which are beyond the above then
we'll need to have two statements. But the minimum in my view, even for a
multistakeholder call, would have to be for a permanent IGF with
strengthened and sustainable support.

Mawaki



On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>
> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
> statement.)
>
> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an
> idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with
> this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil
> society.
>
> jeanette
>
> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/d2e27bc8/attachment.htm>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 06:52:16 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:52:16 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
	<B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com>
	<CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6hJBzBjRhq3SFC9-epfxu7H-6iUv3tgT1P+YiDxbzyQRw@mail.gmail.com>

+1 to this and to Wolfgang's. Hoping that once it's  permanent it could
enjoy some independence to become/transition into an actionable engagement
platform.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Sep 2014 11:01, "Eduardo Bertoni" <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu> wrote:

> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial final
> declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF should do better in
> linking its agenda and wok with the regional IGFs.
>
> e
>
> Eduardo
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Agree.
>>
>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>
>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
>> Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working
>> group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will
>> be
>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia:
>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative
>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy
>> options;
>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF,
>> including
>> through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions
>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both
>> long
>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
>> identification of
>> possible ways to address them."
>>
>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a
>> permanent body instead of  renewing its mandate for another limited term of
>> 5 or 10 years."
>>
>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>
>> best
>>
>> joana
>>
>>
>>  On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé <
>> joao.caribe at me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count
>>> me on to support as I can.
>>>
>>> _
>>> João Carlos Caribé
>>> (021) 8761 1967
>>> (021) 4042 7727
>>> Skype joaocaribe
>>> Enviado via iPad
>>>
>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> escreveu:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement
>>> that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing
>>> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>> >
>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
>>> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
>>> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
>>> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
>>> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
>>> statement.)
>>> >
>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is
>>> only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups.
>>> So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>> support in civil society.
>>> >
>>> > jeanette
>>> >
>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/ea7c5bec/attachment.htm>

From subi.igp at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 07:57:23 2014
From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 17:27:23 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
	<B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com>
	<CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFfuWVmjTx5i021O0AL9+vqBfm41yXbNKMMOnegDWc=-a-e+rg@mail.gmail.com>

Fantastic call Jeanette.
Strongly support.

Warmest

Subi Chaturvedi

On 1 Sep 2014 13:24, "Joana Varon" <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>
> Agree.
>
> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>
> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working
group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will
be
> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include inter-alia:
> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative
> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy
options;
> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF,
including
> through a broadened donor base, is essential;
> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions
> between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both
long
> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
identification of
> possible ways to address them."
>
> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the IGF a
permanent body instead of  renewing its mandate for another limited term of
5 or 10 years."
>
> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>
> best
>
> joana
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé <joao.caribe at me.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support this idea count
me on to support as I can.
>>
>> _
>> João Carlos Caribé
>> (021) 8761 1967
>> (021) 4042 7727
>> Skype joaocaribe
>> Enviado via iPad
>>
>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> escreveu:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement
that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing
its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>> >
>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
statement.)
>> >
>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is
only an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups.
So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
support in civil society.
>> >
>> > jeanette
>> >
>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/b075f862/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Sep  1 08:27:47 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:57:47 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net>

I support the call.

It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional 
funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and 
stable source of funding.

BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally 
are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body 
with institutional funding.

Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some 
developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by 
ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a 
statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure.

parminder

On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would 
> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems 
> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>
> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for 
> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it 
> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps 
> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable 
> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>
> cheers
> Anne
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni 
> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>
>     I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>     final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>     should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>     IGFs.
>
>     e
>
>     Eduardo
>
>
>     On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>     <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>
>         Agree.
>
>         At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>
>         "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>         (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>         UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>         that these recommendations will be
>         implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>         inter-alia:
>         a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>         creative
>         ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>         policy options;
>         b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>         c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>         IGF, including
>         through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>         d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>         discussions
>         between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>         A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>         discussing both long
>         standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>         the identification of
>         possible ways to address them."
>
>         We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>         IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>         another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>
>         1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>
>         best
>
>         joana
>
>
>         On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>         <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>
>             Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>             this idea count me on to support as I can.
>
>             _
>             João Carlos Caribé
>             (021) 8761 1967
>             (021) 4042 7727
>             Skype joaocaribe
>             Enviado via iPad
>
>             > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>             <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>             >
>             > Hi all,
>             >
>             > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>             BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>             permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>             limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>             > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>             BB meeting.
>             >
>             > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>             with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>             impression that we might be able to draft a
>             cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>             community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>             support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>             possible within the few days available to coordiante
>             enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>             inclusive statement.)
>             >
>             > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>             this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>             within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>             bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>             find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>             support in civil society.
>             >
>             > jeanette
>             >
>             > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>             If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>             someone be so kind to forward it?
>             > ____________________________________________________________
>             > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>             > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>             > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>             > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>             ____________________________________________________________
>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>             bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>             To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>             http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>         -- 
>         -- 
>
>         Joana Varon Ferraz
>         @joana_varon
>         PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Anne Jellema
> CEO
> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> @afjellema
> *
> *
> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, 
> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org 
> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/236bbf02/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Sep  1 08:53:22 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:53:22 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: IGF Best Practices - Outcomes on the road to Brazil
In-Reply-To: <D02A11B3.3B91C%bommelaer@isoc.org>
References: <D02A11B3.3B91C%bommelaer@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <A202CEA8-B9F6-4E65-9C76-0884503AC918@eff.org>

This reminder comes from the Internet Society but is worth passing on.  As the best practice documents are the closest that the IGF has yet come to collaborative NETmundial-style outcome documents, though the drafts are very flawed, please review and comment on those that of interest to you before 5 September.  Note also that during the session on Thursday the moderators will be soliciting ideas for themes for best practices for the upcoming IGF Brazil meeting.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:	IGF Best Practices - Outcomes on the road to Brazil
Date:	Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:48:07 +0000
From:	Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer at isoc.org>
To:	...snip recipient list...


Dear Civil Society Colleagues, 

(In CC the Lead Experts of all IGF Best Practices Forums)

As we work together towards tangible IGF outcomes and demonstrating the value of the IGF in the ecosystem, it will be important to hear from Civil Society this week what direction they would like the Best Practices to take. The MAG will need input from all of you on how to organize inter-sessional work, after Istanbul and in the ramp-up to Brazil. 

During the 5 IGF Best Practices Forums  and the Best Practices Main Session (Thursday 4 Sept. 14:30, Main Hall Room), the moderators will be collecting views on the following questions: 
What have we been able to initiate through the IGF best practices dialogue led over the past weeks: better understanding of respective interests (government, industry, CS, technical community), creating a repository of resources on IGF website, identification of common ground between bets practices, agreeing on new best practices? 
What are the new themes of Best Practices we think should be developed in the ramp-up to IGF Brazil (data protection, Human Rights, etc)? 
How can we improve the IGF Best Practices process? 
How can we spread the IGF best practices through the regional and locals IGFs? 

Time will be set aside during each of the Best Practices session as well as the Main Session to hear from all of you!: 
2 Sept., 11:00 – 12:30, Room 1: Creating an Enabling environment for the Development of Local Content

3 Sept. 14:30 – 16:00, Room 1: Regulation and mitigation of unwanted communications (e.g. Spam)

3 Sept. 16:30 – 18h00, Room 1: Developing Meaningful Multistakeholder Mechanisms

4 Sept. 9:00 – 10:30, Room 1: Online Child Protection

4 Sept. 11:00 – 12:30, Room 1: Establishing and Supporting CERTs for Internet Security

4 Sept. 14:30 – 16:00, Main Session Room: IGF Best Practices Main Session 


Best,
Constance 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/610ded46/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Sep  1 09:14:23 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:14:23 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54045617.1050300@wzb.eu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>	<CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com>	<5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org>	<5404308C.5030302@apc.org>	<2E6AE0FC-A7CC-4AF6-9307-30CC97C105B3@eff.org>	<54043E30.8040809@cdt.org>	<9A7041F3-32E1-4D61-AB90-734FAD9D50CD@theglobaljournal.net> <CAJqNAHBKqXcj4Z-dxXA5iVjcPFFY8ppn-WEDdP7ZVMMe5mii7Q@mail.gmail.com> <54045617.1050300@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <95CAA5E8-0894-4F32-BD15-32DF35A08B21@eff.org>

On Sep 1, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> when I suggested yesterday that we should ask for the IGF to become permanent I referred to the specific discussion we had about the number of years.
> 
> However, I don't see any problems with asking for also strengthening the IGF. We have by now several more or less consensual ms documents that support such a position, not least the NetMundial statement.

Please jump on the pad if you can improve the current text which presently reads:

"We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and strengthened."

https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y (at line 326)

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/7ed30d33/attachment.sig>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Sep  1 10:46:22 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 16:46:22 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
Message-ID: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>

Hi all,

Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN 
Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis.

About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF 
and from the NetMundial Statement.

Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and 
perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.

Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.

We have set up a pad for editing:

https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K

For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.

The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.

Stephanie and Jeanette



Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence of 
the IGF


In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the 
Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for 
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum 
(IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating to 
key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in
the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, 
security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and 
developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing 
arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was intended 
to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process, and 
have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the 
desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation 
with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make 
recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth 
session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF, 
underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to 
the broader dialogue on global Internet governance”.
In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the UN 
Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is 
a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and 
international organizations discuss important questions of economic and 
social development. They share their insights and achievements and build 
a common understanding of the Internet’s great potential.


The Secretary-General recommended that
(a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a 
further five years;
(b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the 
outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;

Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the 
preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for 
development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 
New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in 
the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that 
there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 
Important recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN 
CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also 
stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for 
discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to 
contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.”

Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the 
continuing development of Internet governance, we request the UN 
Secretary General to  establish the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder 
forum.  We also request that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF 
and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure and processes.



From subi.igp at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 09:51:40 2014
From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 19:21:40 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] We're listening, in a goodway - social media outreach
 @IGF #IGF2014
Message-ID: <CAFfuWVkgwNsd5qoebznBaYjQSUjA0cjMgJW9_-nbdd8JWec-ig@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Hope all of you landed safely. Delighted to see so many familiar faces.
Those who couldn't make it will be missed.

But please make sure you speak up and make your voice count.

Please see below the link with some relevant information on how to interact
via social media at #IGF2014.

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2014-social-media(on our website)

Want to make sure people see your IGF-related tweets and Facebook posts?
Use the official hashtag:

#IGF2014

If you are tweeting a workshop, use the hashtag format: #WS<workshop
number>. For example, #WS101

See also other hashtags you may also want consider using for workshops and
main sessions.

 Other hashtags you may also want consider using for workshops and main
sessions and key themes:

Note that, where possible, hashtags already used in Internet governance
social media have been used.
Main sessions:
#access
Internet access (including enabling policies)

#accountableIG
Accountability in Internet governance; ICANN’s accountability process

#CIR
Critical Internet Resources

#DigitalTrust
Digital trust; cybersecurity

#futureIG
Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem and the Role of the IGF and
strengthening IGF

#humanrights
Internet and Human Rights

#IANAsteward
Transtion of NTIA’s stewardship role over the IANA functions

#IG4D
Internet governance for development/Policies Enabling Access, Growth and
Development on the Internet

#IGF101
Setting the Scene: Topical Insight and Debate Related to the Subthemes of
IGF 2014

#multistakeholder
Multistakeholder model (of Internet governance)

#netgov
Internet governance

#netneutrality
Network neutrality

#newcomer
IGF orientation

#takingstock
Taking Stock main session

Regards

Subi Chaturvedi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/3bbf202c/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Sep  1 09:56:36 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:56:36 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] VIDEO: Internet Governance Forum Support Association
 inaugural assembly in Istanbul #igfsa @internetSociety #igf2014
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2kq47JOUeffME7q32L8Hh2357WoRgLqfukkFOcTZm6WA@mail.gmail.com>

The IGF itself operates nominally under the auspices of the UN, which has
thus far renewed it's mandate in 5 yearly basis since the IGF was initiated
in Tunis in 2004. The UN pursestrings, which support the IGF Secretariat,
are  relatively tight, and there is always the threat of non-renewal. As a
pillar of the multistakeholder Internet Governance process the IGF has
become indispensable, thus the Internet Society has taken the initiative,
and kicked in some cash, to set up an independent and permanent support
organization. Under Swiss law a general assembly is required to elect
officers, and set membership criteria, and that is what we have here.
Annual dues for individuals are to be $25, and 'legal entities' $100
(minimum). ISOC-NY's Avri Doria was elected to the Executive Committee as a
civil society representative. There is a mailing list
<https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/igfsa>.

 joly posted: "The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA)
has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat and to fund related activities. The
IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at the IGF"


The *Internet Governance Forum Support Association* <http://igfsa.org>
(IGFSA) has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for
the *Internet
Governance Forum* <http://www.intgovforum.org/> (IGF) Secretariat and to
fund related activities. The IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at
the IGF Meeting in Istanbul. Video is below.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J29H6UzFEcs?rel=0&w=600&h=338>

*View on YouTube*:
http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/app/uploads/2014/08/BeyondNETmundial_FINAL.pdf
*Transcribe on AMARA*: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/rfypN2sa5blh/
*Twitter*: #igfsa
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23igfsa&src=typd>
*Facebook*: #igfsa <https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/igfsa>


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954#comments>





*Permalink*
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/e96e42aa/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Sep  1 10:00:40 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 11:00:40 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca>

If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a 
sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from 
other sources.

--c.a.

On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
> I support the call.
>
> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
> stable source of funding.
>
> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body
> with institutional funding.
>
> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure.
>
> parminder
>
> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>
>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>
>> cheers
>> Anne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>     final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>     should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>     IGFs.
>>
>>     e
>>
>>     Eduardo
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>     <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Agree.
>>
>>         At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>
>>         "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>         (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>         UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>         that these recommendations will be
>>         implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>         inter-alia:
>>         a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>         creative
>>         ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>         policy options;
>>         b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>         c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>         IGF, including
>>         through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>         d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>         discussions
>>         between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>         A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>         discussing both long
>>         standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>         the identification of
>>         possible ways to address them."
>>
>>         We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>         IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>         another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>
>>         1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>
>>         best
>>
>>         joana
>>
>>
>>         On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>         <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>             this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>
>>             _
>>             João Carlos Caribé
>>             (021) 8761 1967
>>             (021) 4042 7727
>>             Skype joaocaribe
>>             Enviado via iPad
>>
>>             > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>             <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>             >
>>             > Hi all,
>>             >
>>             > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>             BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>             permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>             limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>             > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>             BB meeting.
>>             >
>>             > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>             with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>             impression that we might be able to draft a
>>             cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>             community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>             support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>             possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>             enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>             inclusive statement.)
>>             >
>>             > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>             this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>             within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>             bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>             find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>             support in civil society.
>>             >
>>             > jeanette
>>             >
>>             > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>             If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>             someone be so kind to forward it?
>>             >
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>             > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>             > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>             > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>             > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>             ____________________________________________________________
>>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>             bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>             To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>             http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         --         --
>>         Joana Varon Ferraz
>>         @joana_varon
>>         PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>>
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anne Jellema
>> CEO
>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>> @afjellema
>> *
>> *
>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Sep  1 03:32:16 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:32:16 +0200
Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I fully support this idea. One Problem - which probably has to be touched by the Statement - would be the future relationship to UNDESA and the status of the MAG.

 
Wolfgang




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 10:33
An: Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
 
Hi all,

at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that 
would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing 
its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.

Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other 
stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able 
to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical 
community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a 
statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days 
available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an 
all inclusive statement.)

Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only 
an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, 
with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your 
opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find 
support in civil society.

jeanette

P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email 
does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?



From Tanya.OCarroll at amnesty.org  Mon Sep  1 09:55:12 2014
From: Tanya.OCarroll at amnesty.org (Tanya O'Carroll)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:55:12 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Twitter chat at the IGF #HowFreeAreYou? 7pm Tues 2nd
 Sept
Message-ID: <OF7DDCB198.506AB0A3-ONC2257D46.0046C8D8-C2257D46.004C79AD@amnesty.org>

Hello everyone,


It was great to participate in the meeting yesterday and meet many of you 
in person. 

I wanted to let people know that AI are planning a Twitter chat tomorrow 
at 7pm Istanbul time: 
http://livewire.amnesty.org/2014/08/28/howfreeareyou-twitter-chat/

This is the first IGF that AI have participated in and we wanted to use 
the opportunity to invite our supporters in different countries to learn 
more about internet governance and how it relates to their rights. 


We will be inviting people to ask their questions using the hashtag 
#HowFreeAreYou. We have four panelists who will provide answers but as it 
is an open conversation it would be great to have others input their 
expertise and opinions to help demystify IG issues for non experts! The 
chat will be in both English and Turkish. 



The Twitter panelists include:
Joy Liddicot, APC
Nighat Dad, Digital Rights Foundation Pakistan
Dixie Hawtin, Global Partners
Quirine Eijkman, Amnesty International Dutch section


A link to the flier is here. It would be great if those here could help 
promote and also join in the discussion tomorrow:  
http://livewire.amnesty.org/2014/08/28/howfreeareyou-twitter-chat/

Thanks and any questions or ideas please let us know!

Best,
Tanya



-- 
Tanya O'Carroll
Project Officer, Technology and Human Rights

tel: +44 (0) 20 7413  5874 
mobile: +44 (0) 7511 370 350 
twitter: @tanyaocarroll | @amnestyonline

</PRE><BR/>
-- 
<p style='font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial'>Working to protect human rights worldwide
<p style='font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial'>DISCLAIMER<p style='font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial'>
This email has been sent by Amnesty International Limited (a company registered in England and Wales limited by guarantee, number 01606776 with registered office at 1 Easton St, London WC1X 0DW). Internet communications are not secure and therefore Amnesty International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or rely on the information in this e-mail. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Amnesty International unless specifically stated. Electronic communications including email might be monitored by Amnesty International for operational or business reasons.<BR/><BR/>This message has been scanned for viruses by Postini. www.postini.com
</p>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/cb0769ce/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Sep  1 10:15:10 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 19:45:10 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54047F6E.8090506@itforchange.net>


I support the call.

It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional 
funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and 
stable source of funding.

BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally 
are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body 
with institutional funding.

Anne, in the CSRD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some 
developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by 
ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a 
statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure.

parminder

On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would 
> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems 
> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>
> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for 
> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it 
> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps 
> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable 
> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>
> cheers
> Anne
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni 
> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>
>     I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>     final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>     should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>     IGFs.
>
>     e
>
>     Eduardo
>
>
>     On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>     <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>
>         Agree.
>
>         At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>
>         "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>         (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>         UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>         that these recommendations will be
>         implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>         inter-alia:
>         a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>         creative
>         ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>         policy options;
>         b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>         c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>         IGF, including
>         through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>         d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>         discussions
>         between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>         A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>         discussing both long
>         standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>         the identification of
>         possible ways to address them."
>
>         We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>         IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>         another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>
>         1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>
>         best
>
>         joana
>
>
>         On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>         <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>
>             Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>             this idea count me on to support as I can.
>
>             _
>             João Carlos Caribé
>             (021) 8761 1967
>             (021) 4042 7727
>             Skype joaocaribe
>             Enviado via iPad
>
>             > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>             <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>             >
>             > Hi all,
>             >
>             > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>             BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>             permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>             limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>             > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>             BB meeting.
>             >
>             > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>             with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>             impression that we might be able to draft a
>             cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>             community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>             support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>             possible within the few days available to coordiante
>             enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>             inclusive statement.)
>             >
>             > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>             this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>             within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>             bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>             find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>             support in civil society.
>             >
>             > jeanette
>             >
>             > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>             If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>             someone be so kind to forward it?
>             > ____________________________________________________________
>             > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>             > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>             > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>             > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>             ____________________________________________________________
>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>             bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>             To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>             http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>         -- 
>         -- 
>
>         Joana Varon Ferraz
>         @joana_varon
>         PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Anne Jellema
> CEO
> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> @afjellema
> *
> *
> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, 
> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org 
> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/9d784dae/attachment.htm>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Mon Sep  1 10:24:09 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:24:09 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <318B00A7-7D45-44D9-A1C2-98546AC18022@theglobaljournal.net>

Don't need to be dogmatic Carlos.

The UN system is one of the most flexible and adaptive one can dream of. It is a very welcoming space for innovative governance thinking.

So it can be a UN spin-off as we have many interesting examples, it can be an entity such as a PPP with a contract to the UN, it can be many things within a UN convention or framework, giving it a special status. So instead of rushing to far too early conclusions, it would rather be just appropriate to mention. I am sure DiploFoundation or Just_Net can bring some good ideas as well.
- to transform the IGF mandate into a permanent formal body
	(emphasizing the shift from an UNDESA project to a more "serious" thing)
- to make sure that difference sources of funding are able to provide the IGF a sustainable and efficient action
	(to make sure that all funding good will is welcome, including a Montevideo I* one or an ICANN direct support (for helping to shape the public policy decision making of the IG)...
- to think of what formal status can it be given to for the IGF to have a democratic multistakeholder governance and structure.
	( to keep track and spirit of the NetMundial progress)

Along these simple lines, I don't see any betrayal of the NetMundial final statement (and comments).

We might not need "to request". We might be much more efficient - if CS act with unanimity, i.e. being very strong in its stance - if the statement goes like : All CS participating to the 2014 IGF commend unanimously the possibility for the UN to envision the IGF as ....

and a less formal and directive: 
"we request the UN Secretary General to  establish the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum.  We also request that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure and processes."

JC

Le 1 sept. 2014 à 16:00, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit :

> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources.
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>> I support the call.
>> 
>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>> stable source of funding.
>> 
>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body
>> with institutional funding.
>> 
>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>> 
>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> Anne
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>>    final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>>    should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>>    IGFs.
>>> 
>>>    e
>>> 
>>>    Eduardo
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>>    <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>        Agree.
>>> 
>>>        At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>> 
>>>        "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>        (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>>        UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>>        that these recommendations will be
>>>        implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>>        inter-alia:
>>>        a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>>        creative
>>>        ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>>        policy options;
>>>        b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>>        c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>>        IGF, including
>>>        through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>>        d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>>        discussions
>>>        between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>>        A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>>        discussing both long
>>>        standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>>        the identification of
>>>        possible ways to address them."
>>> 
>>>        We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>>        IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>>        another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>> 
>>>        1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>> 
>>>        best
>>> 
>>>        joana
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>>        <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>            Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>>            this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>> 
>>>            _
>>>            João Carlos Caribé
>>>            (021) 8761 1967
>>>            (021) 4042 7727
>>>            Skype joaocaribe
>>>            Enviado via iPad
>>> 
>>>            > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>>            <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>>            >
>>>            > Hi all,
>>>            >
>>>            > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>>            BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>>            permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>>            limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>>            > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>>            BB meeting.
>>>            >
>>>            > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>>            with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>>            impression that we might be able to draft a
>>>            cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>>            community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>>            support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>>            possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>>            enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>>            inclusive statement.)
>>>            >
>>>            > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>>            this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>>            within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>>            bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>>            find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>>            support in civil society.
>>>            >
>>>            > jeanette
>>>            >
>>>            > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>>            If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>>            someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>            >
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>            > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>            > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>            <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>            > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>            > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>>            ____________________________________________________________
>>>            You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>            bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>            <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>            To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>            http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        --         --
>>>        Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>        @joana_varon
>>>        PGP 0x016B8E73
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>        To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Anne Jellema
>>> CEO
>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>> @afjellema
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/e90f19d9/attachment.htm>

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 10:54:41 2014
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:54:41 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com>

All,

There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions made by the UN General Assembly.

Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006) that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the time who were working the event were told to let management know if he showed up so that he could be denied admission.

Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.

I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.

So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN administration/control/funding of future IGFs.

George 




On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources.
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>> I support the call.
>> 
>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>> stable source of funding.
>> 
>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body
>> with institutional funding.
>> 
>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>> 
>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> Anne
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>>    final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>>    should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>>    IGFs.
>>> 
>>>    e
>>> 
>>>    Eduardo
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>>    <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>        Agree.
>>> 
>>>        At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>> 
>>>        "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>        (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>>        UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>>        that these recommendations will be
>>>        implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>>        inter-alia:
>>>        a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>>        creative
>>>        ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>>        policy options;
>>>        b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>>        c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>>        IGF, including
>>>        through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>>        d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>>        discussions
>>>        between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>>        A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>>        discussing both long
>>>        standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>>        the identification of
>>>        possible ways to address them."
>>> 
>>>        We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>>        IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>>        another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>> 
>>>        1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>> 
>>>        best
>>> 
>>>        joana
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>>        <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>            Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>>            this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>> 
>>>            _
>>>            João Carlos Caribé
>>>            (021) 8761 1967
>>>            (021) 4042 7727
>>>            Skype joaocaribe
>>>            Enviado via iPad
>>> 
>>>            > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>>            <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>>            >
>>>            > Hi all,
>>>            >
>>>            > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>>            BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>>            permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>>            limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>>            > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>>            BB meeting.
>>>            >
>>>            > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>>            with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>>            impression that we might be able to draft a
>>>            cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>>            community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>>            support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>>            possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>>            enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>>            inclusive statement.)
>>>            >
>>>            > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>>            this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>>            within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>>            bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>>            find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>>            support in civil society.
>>>            >
>>>            > jeanette
>>>            >
>>>            > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>>            If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>>            someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>            >
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>            > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>            > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>            <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>            > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>            > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>>            ____________________________________________________________
>>>            You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>            bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>            <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>            To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>            http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        --         --
>>>        Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>        @joana_varon
>>>        PGP 0x016B8E73
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>        To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Anne Jellema
>>> CEO
>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>> @afjellema
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From subi.igp at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 11:28:07 2014
From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 20:58:07 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] VIDEO: Internet Governance Forum
 Support Association inaugural assembly in Istanbul #igfsa @internetSociety
 #igf2014
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk17nedLQ_XmC2WdK-r56hBwk5E+H9uEVdBbEeOgBM2hJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk17nedLQ_XmC2WdK-r56hBwk5E+H9uEVdBbEeOgBM2hJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFfuWVnAjnWXZ4juc3PWPjXySk7idaM6uson-OzpxBnobCSMYg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,
Thanks Joly for sharing. And many congratulations to the global IG
community. Please find attached the link to the news release regarding the
launch of the #IGFSA shared by Markus Kummer.

http://www.internetsociety.org/news/new-association-launched-support-internet-governance-forum-and-its-essential-role-addressing

Do please share it amongst your community and stakeholder groups.
The Internet Governance Support Association is here, please spread the word.

Individual memberships 25 usd
Moral entities read groups companies bodies 100 USD (annual)

Some key Priorities:
1. Enable small and medium contributions for the IGF.
2. Facilitating new and diverse participants at the IGF ( we recognise only
too well a strong need especially for developing countries and emerging
economies CS participants.
3. Strengthening the IGF Secretariat. They do a great job work really hard
and helping hands will make OUR IGF better and create value for all.

Call: Join, engage, support. Open up your hearts and loosen your purse
strings. Sign up and contribute.

Warmest

Subi Chaturvedi

On 1 Sep 2014 19:26, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>
>
> The IGF itself operates nominally under the auspices of the UN, which has
thus far renewed it's mandate in 5 yearly basis since the IGF was initiated
in Tunis in 2004. The UN pursestrings, which support the IGF Secretariat,
are  relatively tight, and there is always the threat of non-renewal. As a
pillar of the multistakeholder Internet Governance process the IGF has
become indispensable, thus the Internet Society has taken the initiative,
and kicked in some cash, to set up an independent and permanent support
organization. Under Swiss law a general assembly is required to elect
officers, and set membership criteria, and that is what we have here.
Annual dues for individuals are to be $25, and 'legal entities' $100
(minimum). ISOC-NY's Avri Doria was elected to the Executive Committee as a
civil society representative. There is a mailing list.
>
> joly posted: "The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA)
has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat and to fund related activities. The
IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at the IGF"
>
>
> The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) has the purpose
to provide stable and sustainable support for the Internet Governance Forum
(IGF) Secretariat and to fund related activities. The IGFSA was launched on
1st September 2014 at the IGF Meeting in Istanbul. Video is below.
>
> View on YouTube:
http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/app/uploads/2014/08/BeyondNETmundial_FINAL.pdf
> Transcribe on AMARA: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/rfypN2sa5blh/
> Twitter: #igfsa
> Facebook: #igfsa
>
>
>
> Comment
>    See all comments
>
>
>
>
>
> Permalink
> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/82e3bb5b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20140901_151829.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 276344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/82e3bb5b/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20140901_151840.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 309163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/82e3bb5b/attachment-0001.jpg>

From mshears at cdt.org  Mon Sep  1 11:42:28 2014
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:42:28 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <540493E4.7030806@cdt.org>

Jeanette, Stephanie

Great initiative.   Would be wonderful if we could turn this around, get 
signatures and announce during the open mic/closing session.

Can we try and get comments by end of Wednesday, sign-ons by end of day 
Thurs?

Letter may be a little long and overly full of UN text references - but 
that may be a matter of tweaking.

Best.

Matthew

On 9/1/2014 5:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN 
> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent 
> basis.
>
> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the 
> IGF and from the NetMundial Statement.
>
> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and 
> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>
> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>
> We have set up a pad for editing:
>
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>
> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>
> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>
> Stephanie and Jeanette
>
>
>
> Request for consideration to the UN Secretary General on permanence of 
> the IGF
>
>
> In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the 
> Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for 
> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum 
> (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
> The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating 
> to key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in
> the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, 
> security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and 
> developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing 
> arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was 
> intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding 
> process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations 
> of the Internet.
> The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the 
> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation 
> with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to 
> make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its 
> sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to extend the 
> mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a 
> view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet 
> governance”.
> In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the 
> UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. 
> It is a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and 
> international organizations discuss important questions of economic 
> and social development. They share their insights and achievements and 
> build a common understanding of the Internet’s great potential.
>
>
> The Secretary-General recommended that
> (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for 
> a further five years;
> (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
> States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the 
> outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>
> Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the 
> preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for 
> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 
> New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
> The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated 
> in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that 
> there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 
> Important recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN 
> CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also 
> stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for 
> discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to 
> contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.”
>
> Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the 
> continuing development of Internet governance, we request the UN 
> Secretary General to  establish the IGF as a permanent 
> multistakeholder forum.  We also request that the UN Secretary General 
> work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure and 
> processes.
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/f2200154/attachment.htm>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Mon Sep  1 13:44:12 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 19:44:12 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CD459ADB-AE42-4948-BA45-B3968CAE665C@theglobaljournal.net>

Quite amusing, George, to see you going after the UN over its alleged not-totally-representativity of the world's population. Do you know of another organization that would better cover the world? The WEF? The ICANN?

Just smiling a bit.

Taipei is here in Geneva as a delegation, and I am quite familiar with them. They know how to deal with this issue - may we remember that China is responsible for this situation and not the UN? They are for example doing quite a good job with WHO. A citizen from Taipei, member of JustNet or from ISOC has no problem to attend IGF. 

Regarding Palestine, apart for the UN to be constantly spending years on the ground and being the largest operating body in this "country", the Palestinian Authority has now access to UNESCO, a small diplomatic victory. The UN is willing to have Palestine onboard. Israel and the US are not so keen to.

So what's your point here about the UN not being "good at" (what?). And do you best switch what has been launched under a UN umbrella, the IGF, to another umbrella - without its consent? Wasn't the letter by CS supposed to be sent to UN SG? If I follow you, then maybe this letter regarding the IGF should be sent to someone else? What are you thinking of? Looking for someone to come and point another UN caveat. Are you interesting to launch another UN-bashing campaign? Just trying to understand why you did that comment. So amusing that Suresh agrees fully with your comment by the way (Hi there Suresh)


JC




Le 1 sept. 2014 à 16:54, George Sadowsky a écrit :

> All,
> 
> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions made by the UN General Assembly.
> 
> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006) that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the time who were working the event were told to let management know if he showed up so that he could be denied admission.
> 
> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.
> 
> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.
> 
> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN administration/control/funding of future IGFs.
> 
> George 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> 
>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources.
>> 
>> --c.a.
>> 
>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>>> I support the call.
>>> 
>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>>> stable source of funding.
>>> 
>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body
>>> with institutional funding.
>>> 
>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure.
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>>> 
>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>>> 
>>>> cheers
>>>> Anne
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>>>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>   I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>>>   final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>>>   should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>>>   IGFs.
>>>> 
>>>>   e
>>>> 
>>>>   Eduardo
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>>>   <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>       Agree.
>>>> 
>>>>       At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>>> 
>>>>       "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>>       (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>>>       UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>>>       that these recommendations will be
>>>>       implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>>>       inter-alia:
>>>>       a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>>>       creative
>>>>       ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>>>       policy options;
>>>>       b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>>>       c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>>>       IGF, including
>>>>       through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>>>       d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>>>       discussions
>>>>       between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>>>       A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>>>       discussing both long
>>>>       standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>>>       the identification of
>>>>       possible ways to address them."
>>>> 
>>>>       We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>>>       IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>>>       another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>>> 
>>>>       1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>>> 
>>>>       best
>>>> 
>>>>       joana
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>       On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>>>       <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>           Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>>>           this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>>> 
>>>>           _
>>>>           João Carlos Caribé
>>>>           (021) 8761 1967
>>>>           (021) 4042 7727
>>>>           Skype joaocaribe
>>>>           Enviado via iPad
>>>> 
>>>>> Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>           <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>>>           BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>>>           permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>>>           limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>>>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>>>           BB meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>>>           with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>>>           impression that we might be able to draft a
>>>>           cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>>>           community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>>>           support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>>>           possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>>>           enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>>>           inclusive statement.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>>>           this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>>>           within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>>>           bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>>>           find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>>>           support in civil society.
>>>>> 
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>> 
>>>>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>>>           If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>>>           someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>           <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> 
>>>>           ____________________________________________________________
>>>>           You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>           bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>           <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>           To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>           http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>       --         --
>>>>       Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>       @joana_varon
>>>>       PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>       ____________________________________________________________
>>>>       You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>       To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   ____________________________________________________________
>>>>   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>   bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>   To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>   http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Anne Jellema
>>>> CEO
>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>>> @afjellema
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
>>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/a4800dc1/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Sep  1 14:58:17 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 14:58:17 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] VIDEO: Internet Governance Forum Support Association
 inaugural assembly in Istanbul #igfsa @internetSociety #igf2014
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk2kq47JOUeffME7q32L8Hh2357WoRgLqfukkFOcTZm6WA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk2kq47JOUeffME7q32L8Hh2357WoRgLqfukkFOcTZm6WA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0Gn20dSigZ1_66iK2YruznajPmEvG6inH2TdX-8xhWzg@mail.gmail.com>

It was a long night. So I screwed up the 'View on YouTube" link! Sorry
about that.

It is http://youtu.be/J29H6UzFEcs, I've corrected below.

There is also now a press release at
http://www.internetsociety.org/news/new-association-launched-support-internet-governance-forum-and-its-essential-role-addressing



On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

>
> The IGF itself operates nominally under the auspices of the UN, which has
> thus far renewed it's mandate in 5 yearly basis since the IGF was initiated
> in Tunis in 2004. The UN pursestrings, which support the IGF Secretariat,
> are  relatively tight, and there is always the threat of non-renewal. As a
> pillar of the multistakeholder Internet Governance process the IGF has
> become indispensable, thus the Internet Society has taken the initiative,
> and kicked in some cash, to set up an independent and permanent support
> organization. Under Swiss law a general assembly is required to elect
> officers, and set membership criteria, and that is what we have here.
> Annual dues for individuals are to be $25, and 'legal entities' $100
> (minimum). ISOC-NY's Avri Doria was elected to the Executive Committee as a
> civil society representative. There is a mailing list
> <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/igfsa>.
>
>  joly posted: "The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA)
> has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat and to fund related activities. The
> IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at the IGF"
>
>
> The *Internet Governance Forum Support Association* <http://igfsa.org>
> (IGFSA) has the purpose to provide stable and sustainable support for the *Internet
> Governance Forum* <http://www.intgovforum.org/> (IGF) Secretariat and to
> fund related activities. The IGFSA was launched on 1st September 2014 at
> the IGF Meeting in Istanbul. Video is below.
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J29H6UzFEcs?rel=0&w=600&h=338>
>
> *View on YouTube*: http://youtu.be/J29H6UzFEcs
> *Transcribe on AMARA*: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/rfypN2sa5blh/
> *Twitter*: #igfsa
> <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23igfsa&src=typd>
> *Facebook*: #igfsa <https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/igfsa>
>
>
> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954#respond>    See all comments
> <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954#comments>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Permalink*
> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6954
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/7c55dc73/attachment.htm>

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 15:48:31 2014
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:48:31 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CD459ADB-AE42-4948-BA45-B3968CAE665C@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <CD459ADB-AE42-4948-BA45-B3968CAE665C@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <1880DDD4-4E16-4DD2-BF95-4206B1DE7729@gmail.com>

I don't share your sense of humor and I do not find your tone constructive.

My point is that the UN as an organization is a creation of governments, and it responds through the political process to what governments want  --  as it did when China caused the UN to expel Taiwan.  Perhaps it's easier to see in the context of the ITU, one of the UN's specialized agencies.

My point is that the UN as an organization has its strong and its weak points.  The discussion seemed to indicate a sense that the UN was a panacea to the problems of Internet governance.  The issue is not whether there's a better organization that covers the world.  The issue is how can we structure the best, more permanent home for the IGF that we want.  The UN may be a part of how that home is provided, but it definitely should not dominate in any manner.

George


On Sep 1, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Quite amusing, George, to see you going after the UN over its alleged not-totally-representativity of the world's population. Do you know of another organization that would better cover the world? The WEF? The ICANN?
> 
> Just smiling a bit.
> 
> Taipei is here in Geneva as a delegation, and I am quite familiar with them. They know how to deal with this issue - may we remember that China is responsible for this situation and not the UN? They are for example doing quite a good job with WHO. A citizen from Taipei, member of JustNet or from ISOC has no problem to attend IGF. 
> 
> Regarding Palestine, apart for the UN to be constantly spending years on the ground and being the largest operating body in this "country", the Palestinian Authority has now access to UNESCO, a small diplomatic victory. The UN is willing to have Palestine onboard. Israel and the US are not so keen to.
> 
> So what's your point here about the UN not being "good at" (what?). And do you best switch what has been launched under a UN umbrella, the IGF, to another umbrella - without its consent? Wasn't the letter by CS supposed to be sent to UN SG? If I follow you, then maybe this letter regarding the IGF should be sent to someone else? What are you thinking of? Looking for someone to come and point another UN caveat. Are you interesting to launch another UN-bashing campaign? Just trying to understand why you did that comment. So amusing that Suresh agrees fully with your comment by the way (Hi there Suresh)
> 
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 1 sept. 2014 à 16:54, George Sadowsky a écrit :
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions made by the UN General Assembly.
>> 
>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006) that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the time who were working the event were told to let management know if he showed up so that he could be denied admission.
>> 
>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.
>> 
>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.
>> 
>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN administration/control/funding of future IGFs.
>> 
>> George 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources.
>>> 
>>> --c.a.
>>> 
>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>> I support the call.
>>>> 
>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>>>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>>>> stable source of funding.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body
>>>> with institutional funding.
>>>> 
>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>>>> 
>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>>>> 
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> Anne

<<trimmed>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/52b2c4e5/attachment.htm>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Mon Sep  1 16:23:03 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:23:03 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <1880DDD4-4E16-4DD2-BF95-4206B1DE7729@gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <CD459ADB-AE42-4948-BA45-B3968CAE665C@theglobaljournal.net> <1880DDD4-4E16-4DD2-BF95-4206B1DE7729@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <23E16C51-32A2-4E77-81EE-AF5B4F267C74@theglobaljournal.net>

No, the issue is not about how can we structure the best, more permanent home for the IGF, when CS writes to UN SG tomorrow.

It is first about creating a permanent "IGF", then to fund it decently, then to make it compliant with the Netmundial's idea of a democratic MS model.
So before taking IGF away from the UN, let's start to find unanimity over the next reasonable and achievable step.

Asking for the moon (new home for IGF) now is not constructive. It is not about the tone of anyone's email - between you and me, we might not like the same kind of wine, and this is still fine.

If CS wants to go forward and weight on the future of IG, there is only one way forward : unanimity. That would be the real message. A highly constructive one. Not starting again a discussion about the strong and weak points of any entity, now.

This is what is at stake, just over the next three days. That can be achieved.

JC



Le 1 sept. 2014 à 21:48, George Sadowsky a écrit :

> I don't share your sense of humor and I do not find your tone constructive.
> 
> My point is that the UN as an organization is a creation of governments, and it responds through the political process to what governments want  --  as it did when China caused the UN to expel Taiwan.  Perhaps it's easier to see in the context of the ITU, one of the UN's specialized agencies.
> 
> My point is that the UN as an organization has its strong and its weak points.  The discussion seemed to indicate a sense that the UN was a panacea to the problems of Internet governance.  The issue is not whether there's a better organization that covers the world.  The issue is how can we structure the best, more permanent home for the IGF that we want.  The UN may be a part of how that home is provided, but it definitely should not dominate in any manner.
> 
> George
> 
> 
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> 
>> Quite amusing, George, to see you going after the UN over its alleged not-totally-representativity of the world's population. Do you know of another organization that would better cover the world? The WEF? The ICANN?
>> 
>> Just smiling a bit.
>> 
>> Taipei is here in Geneva as a delegation, and I am quite familiar with them. They know how to deal with this issue - may we remember that China is responsible for this situation and not the UN? They are for example doing quite a good job with WHO. A citizen from Taipei, member of JustNet or from ISOC has no problem to attend IGF. 
>> 
>> Regarding Palestine, apart for the UN to be constantly spending years on the ground and being the largest operating body in this "country", the Palestinian Authority has now access to UNESCO, a small diplomatic victory. The UN is willing to have Palestine onboard. Israel and the US are not so keen to.
>> 
>> So what's your point here about the UN not being "good at" (what?). And do you best switch what has been launched under a UN umbrella, the IGF, to another umbrella - without its consent? Wasn't the letter by CS supposed to be sent to UN SG? If I follow you, then maybe this letter regarding the IGF should be sent to someone else? What are you thinking of? Looking for someone to come and point another UN caveat. Are you interesting to launch another UN-bashing campaign? Just trying to understand why you did that comment. So amusing that Suresh agrees fully with your comment by the way (Hi there Suresh)
>> 
>> 
>> JC
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 1 sept. 2014 à 16:54, George Sadowsky a écrit :
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions made by the UN General Assembly.
>>> 
>>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006) that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the time who were working the event were told to let management know if he showed up so that he could be denied admission.
>>> 
>>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.
>>> 
>>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.
>>> 
>>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN administration/control/funding of future IGFs.
>>> 
>>> George 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources.
>>>> 
>>>> --c.a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>> I support the call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>>>>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>>>>> stable source of funding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body
>>>>> with institutional funding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>> Anne
> 
> <<trimmed>>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/0ce49e1e/attachment.htm>

From remmyn at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 03:35:43 2014
From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:35:43 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CAMc__oq57DFUAcqdtzgzRgY9DsCDksnWsQKRdNta9tXX=WxYcQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Jeanette
I think its a welcome development for us all to make a sustained effort at
getting multistakeholder across board, especially in government where each
tenure display a new or varied understanding of what IGF is all about and
should be.
Regards
Remmy Nweke


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>
> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
> statement.)
>
> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an
> idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with
> this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil
> society.
>
> jeanette
>
> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
____
REMMY NWEKE,
Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd
(publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News;
ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet
(Multiple-award winning medium)
Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd
Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza
Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos
M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475,
T: @ITRealms <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
[Member, NIRA Executive Board]
Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
<https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria>
NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2014<
http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5
Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2014 <http://www.ipv6forumnigeria.ng> - June 6
@Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com
_____________________________________________________________________
*Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments
are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended
only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal
responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do
not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make
any copies. Violators may face court persecution.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/e6e5134f/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Sep  1 17:25:37 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 02:55:37 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <5404E451.60604@itforchange.net>


On Monday 01 September 2014 07:30 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming 
> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come 
> from other sources.

Are you suggesting that all funding should be non UN? If so, what could 
be the possible sources? parminder

>
> --c.a.
>
> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>> I support the call.
>>
>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>> stable source of funding.
>>
>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body
>> with institutional funding.
>>
>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>>
>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Anne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>>     final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>>     should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>>     IGFs.
>>>
>>>     e
>>>
>>>     Eduardo
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>>     <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Agree.
>>>
>>>         At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>>
>>>         "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>         (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>>         UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>>         that these recommendations will be
>>>         implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>>         inter-alia:
>>>         a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>>         creative
>>>         ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>>         policy options;
>>>         b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>>         c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>>         IGF, including
>>>         through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>>         d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>>         discussions
>>>         between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>>         A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>>         discussing both long
>>>         standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>>         the identification of
>>>         possible ways to address them."
>>>
>>>         We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>>         IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>>         another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>>
>>>         1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>>
>>>         best
>>>
>>>         joana
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>>         <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>>             this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>>
>>>             _
>>>             João Carlos Caribé
>>>             (021) 8761 1967
>>>             (021) 4042 7727
>>>             Skype joaocaribe
>>>             Enviado via iPad
>>>
>>>             > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>>             <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>>             >
>>>             > Hi all,
>>>             >
>>>             > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>>             BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>>             permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>>             limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>>             > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>>             BB meeting.
>>>             >
>>>             > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>>             with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>>             impression that we might be able to draft a
>>>             cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>>             community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>>             support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>>             possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>>             enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>>             inclusive statement.)
>>>             >
>>>             > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>>             this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>>             within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>>             bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>>             find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>>             support in civil society.
>>>             >
>>>             > jeanette
>>>             >
>>>             > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>>             If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>>             someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>             >
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>             > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>             > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>             > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>             > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>             bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>             To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>             http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         --         --
>>>         Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>         @joana_varon
>>>         PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Anne Jellema
>>> CEO
>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>> @afjellema
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Sep  1 17:38:12 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 03:08:12 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br>
Message-ID: <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net>


If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe 
that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can 
make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public 
dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being 
prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without 
resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about 
this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social 
Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being 
proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously.

It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to 
show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong 
with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature.

parminder


On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF
> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on
> IGF.
> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also
> long  time to take decisions due to consultations to any government,
> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily
> report.
> Better not to go through this path.
> Vanda Scartezini
> Polo Consultores Associados
> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is
>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions
>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions
>> made by the UN General Assembly.
>>
>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a
>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006)
>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the
>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he
>> showed up so that he could be denied admission.
>>
>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was
>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to
>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This
>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code
>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.
>>
>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are
>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.
>>
>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are
>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic,
>> bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not
>> increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN
>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs.
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming
>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from
>>> other sources.
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>> I support the call.
>>>>
>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>>>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>>>> stable source of funding.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated
>>>> body
>>>> with institutional funding.
>>>>
>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN,
>>>> measure.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>>>>
>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> Anne
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>>>>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>>>>     final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>>>>     should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>>>>     IGFs.
>>>>>
>>>>>     e
>>>>>
>>>>>     Eduardo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>>>>     <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>         At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>>>>
>>>>>         "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>>>         (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>>>>         UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>>>>         that these recommendations will be
>>>>>         implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>>>>         inter-alia:
>>>>>         a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>>>>         creative
>>>>>         ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>>>>         policy options;
>>>>>         b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>>>>         c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>>>>         IGF, including
>>>>>         through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>>>>         d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>>>>         discussions
>>>>>         between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>>>>         A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>>>>         discussing both long
>>>>>         standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>>>>         the identification of
>>>>>         possible ways to address them."
>>>>>
>>>>>         We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>>>>         IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>>>>         another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>>>>
>>>>>         1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>>>>
>>>>>         best
>>>>>
>>>>>         joana
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>>>>         <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>             Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>>>>             this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>>>>
>>>>>             _
>>>>>             João Carlos Caribé
>>>>>             (021) 8761 1967
>>>>>             (021) 4042 7727
>>>>>             Skype joaocaribe
>>>>>             Enviado via iPad
>>>>>
>>>>>             > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>             <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>>>>             >
>>>>>             > Hi all,
>>>>>             >
>>>>>             > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>>>>             BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>>>>             permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>>>>             limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>>>>             > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>>>>             BB meeting.
>>>>>             >
>>>>>             > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>>>>             with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>>>>             impression that we might be able to draft a
>>>>>             cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>>>>             community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>>>>             support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>>>>             possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>>>>             enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>>>>             inclusive statement.)
>>>>>             >
>>>>>             > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>>>>             this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>>>>             within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>>>>             bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>>>>             find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>>>>             support in civil society.
>>>>>             >
>>>>>             > jeanette
>>>>>             >
>>>>>             > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>>>>             If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>>>>             someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>>>             >
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>             > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>             > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>             > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>             > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>>             
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>             bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>             To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>             http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         --         --
>>>>>         Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>>         @joana_varon
>>>>>         PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Anne Jellema
>>>>> CEO
>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>>>> @afjellema
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
>>>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/991f9a17/attachment.htm>

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 17:52:02 2014
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 17:52:02 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BDB1A798-A04D-4665-A90E-C891A0AD39ED@gmail.com>

There are other rigidities in the UN system that may not be compatible with the overall aims of the IGF.  My Taiwan illustration was just that.   And, by the way, to get a new activity into the UN regular budget is enormously difficult; the UN relies on so-called extra-budgetary funds for many of its initiatives, and that represents insecure funding. 

In response to a previous post, I don't think that Carlos is suggesting that no funding come from the UN.  I note that the Internet Society has just initiated a call for funding the IGF on a more permanent basis.  In the past, ICANN has provided major funding, and so have some governments.   

I see nothing wrong with accepting funding from all sectors, provided that the funding is used in a fair and responsible manner and is not used to promote the special interests of the sector.  This has in part been the case so far, and is a reasonable model to promote.  You may wish to add some  caveats, but the principle stands.  All sectors do have their own interests, but none are pure evil.  All sectors have something to gain from the IGF or they would not contribute.

I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative mode rather than an environment of suspicion.

George


On Sep 1, 2014, at 5:38 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously. 
> 
> It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF
>> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on
>> IGF.  
>> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also
>> long  time to take decisions due to consultations to any government,
>> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily
>> report.
>> Better not to go through this path.
>> Vanda Scartezini
>> Polo Consultores Associados
>> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is
>>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions
>>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions
>>> made by the UN General Assembly.
>>> 
>>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a
>>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006)
>>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the
>>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he
>>> showed up so that he could be denied admission.
>>> 
>>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was
>>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to
>>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This
>>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code
>>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.
>>> 
>>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are
>>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.
>>> 
>>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are
>>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic,
>>> bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not
>>> increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN
>>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs.
>>> 
>>> George 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming
>>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from
>>>> other sources.
>>>> 
>>>> --c.a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>> I support the call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>>>>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>>>>> stable source of funding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated
>>>>> body
>>>>> with institutional funding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN,
>>>>> measure.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>> Anne
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>>>>>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>>>>>    final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>>>>>    should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>>>>>    IGFs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    e
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Eduardo
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>>>>>    <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        Agree.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>>>>        (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>>>>>        UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>>>>>        that these recommendations will be
>>>>>>        implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>>>>>        inter-alia:
>>>>>>        a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>>>>>        creative
>>>>>>        ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>>>>>        policy options;
>>>>>>        b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>>>>>        c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>>>>>        IGF, including
>>>>>>        through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>>>>>        d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>>>>>        discussions
>>>>>>        between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>>>>>        A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>>>>>        discussing both long
>>>>>>        standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>>>>>        the identification of
>>>>>>        possible ways to address them."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>>>>>        IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>>>>>        another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        best
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        joana
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>>>>>        <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>            Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>>>>>            this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>            _
>>>>>>            João Carlos Caribé
>>>>>>            (021) 8761 1967
>>>>>>            (021) 4042 7727
>>>>>>            Skype joaocaribe
>>>>>>            Enviado via iPad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>            > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>            <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > Hi all,
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>>>>>            BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>>>>>            permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>>>>>            limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>>>>>            > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>>>>>            BB meeting.
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>>>>>            with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>>>>>            impression that we might be able to draft a
>>>>>>            cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>>>>>            community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>>>>>            support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>>>>>            possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>>>>>            enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>>>>>            inclusive statement.)
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>>>>>            this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>>>>>            within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>>>>>            bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>>>>>            find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>>>>>            support in civil society.
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > jeanette
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>>>>>            If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>>>>>            someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>            > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>            > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>            <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>            > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>            > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>            You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>            bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>            <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>            To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>            http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        --         --
>>>>>>        Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>>>        @joana_varon
>>>>>>        PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>        To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Anne Jellema
>>>>>> CEO
>>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>>>>> @afjellema
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
>>>>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/dc98f4c0/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 18:21:33 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 18:21:33 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Best Practices Forums and IGF beyond 2015
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAf8Jjh8zx2VRv6eo4NggvNFXZZv60KzUg79H=VumxUwNg@mail.gmail.com>

this might be of your interest, specially regarding our debates on UGF
renewal and best practices


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer at isoc.org>
Date: Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:48 PM
Subject: IGF Best Practices - Outcomes on the road to Brazil
To:
Cc:

Dear Civil Society Colleagues,

(In CC the Lead Experts of all IGF Best Practices Forums)

As we work together towards tangible IGF outcomes and demonstrating the
value of the IGF in the ecosystem, it will be important to hear from Civil
Society this week what direction they would like the Best Practices
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums> to take. The MAG will
need input from all of you on how to organize inter-sessional work, after
Istanbul and in the ramp-up to Brazil.

During the 5 IGF Best Practices Forums  and the Best Practices Main Session
(Thursday 4 Sept. 14:30, Main Hall Room), the moderators will be collecting
views on the following questions:

   - What have we been able to initiate through the IGF best practices
   dialogue led over the past weeks: better understanding of respective
   interests (government, industry, CS, technical community), creating a
   repository of resources on IGF website
   <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/open-call-to-join-igf-best-practices-forums-preparatory-process>,
   identification of common ground between bets practices, agreeing on new
   best practices?
   - *What are the new themes of Best Practices we think should be
   developed in the ramp-up to IGF Brazil (data protection, Human Rights,
   etc)? *
   - How can we improve the IGF Best Practices process?
   - How can we spread the IGF best practices through the regional and
   locals IGFs?


*Time will be set aside during each of the Best Practices session
<http://igf2014.sched.org/type/best+practice+forum> as well as the Main
Session to hear from all of you!: *

2 Sept., 11:00 – 12:30, Room 1: Creating an Enabling environment for the
Development of Local Content
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/170-igf-2014/best-practice-forums-2014/1894-creating-an-enabling-environment-for-the-development-of-local-content>

3 Sept. 14:30 – 16:00, Room 1: Regulation and mitigation of unwanted
communications (e.g. Spam)
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/170-igf-2014/best-practice-forums-2014/1892-regulation-and-mitigation-of-unwanted-communications>

3 Sept. 16:30 – 18h00, Room 1: Developing Meaningful Multistakeholder
Mechanisms
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/170-igf-2014/best-practice-forums-2014/1891-developing-meaningful-multistakeholder-participation-mechnisms>

4 Sept. 9:00 – 10:30, Room 1: Online Child Protection
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/170-igf-2014/best-practice-forums-2014/1895-best-practices-for-online-child-protection>

4 Sept. 11:00 – 12:30, Room 1: Establishing and Supporting CERTs for
Internet Security
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/170-igf-2014/best-practice-forums-2014/1893-establishing-and-supporting-computer-emergency-response-teams-certs-for-internet-security>

*4 Sept. 14:30 – 16:00, Main Session Room: IGF Best Practices Main Session
<http://igf2014.sched.org/event/e8e32b74907dc80de4e5383e1e37063f#.VAQ3XUgb5aU> *

Best,
Constance




-- 

-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy and Stratey *
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/e2f72255/attachment.htm>

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 20:32:44 2014
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 20:32:44 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <D0783AE4-F076-4A5A-A673-B8A27F0D6A1B@gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> <BDB1A798-A04D-4665-A90E-C891A0AD39ED@gmail.com> <D0783AE4-F076-4A5A-A673-B8A27F0D6A1B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8C42F7F4-E463-4ED2-A32A-BE7532F3081D@gmail.com>

I stand by my previous remarks, but add the following:

The UN has lots of potential to do good, but is often constrained in ways that reduce its effectiveness substantially.  I worked at the UN Secretariat for 13 years, and I know this in depth, first hand.  Your comments regarding innovation spare are contradicted by my experience.

I am not trying to put everyone's mind in fear.  Don't attribute to me things that are not true.

There is no question that there are anticompetitive elements in the world's telecommunication system.  There are points of contention in almost all countries and industries.   But that does not in general make countries and organizations uniformly evil.  This argument has nothing to do with having a strong and functioning IGF, except maybe that such an IGF could help to ameliorate some of the existing problems.

I suspect that all organizations can be improved.  The IGF is not a dead machine as you state, but an evolving one.  There are differing views regarding which way it should evolve.  Your specific view is not universally shared.

I look forward to the results of current efforts by the private sector and the technical community to build a more durable base for the IGF.  I trust that you do also, and that you do not reject support from sectors other than your own.

Based upon no intervention from others, I think that this thread has achieved all the usefulness that it will have, and I will be reluctant to carry it further.

George


On Sep 1, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:

> Most surprisingly to me George, you have a very narrow view about going from A (current state of IGF - dead-end) to B (a reinvented IGF).
> 
> Instead of trying putting into everyone's mind doubt and fear (my god, the UN budget!!) about the weak points of the UN, (we all see weak points in the US as well and thanks to people like Suzan Crawford and Jaron lanier to be the honest observers of what's going wrong in the telecommunication and Internet world), instead of making your statement on the assumption that the UN is not being compatible with an undefined MS model that has failed as has the IGF itself, instead of all that and more, I would encourage you to allow us some room for a refreshing thinking.  And allow innovation. As I wrote in my first email today, the UN system offers more innovative space and room for imagination than any other governing space. For a young institution created during the second world war, I find this encouraging.
> 
> A few examples:
> Interpeace is a great peacebuilding NGO that was created from within the UN ; the GAVI alliance was created thanks to the UN and not just because of its weak points, the R20 was launched by a UN senior executive at UNDP, I could bring dozens of examples of how the UN successfully gave birth to many different kind of "birds".
> 
> These spin-offs and institutional start-ups have their freedom, still having a strong link to the UN, and part of its DNA, some of it isn't that bad after all in terms of universal declaration of human rights to name a few. There are not intergovernmental bodies per say. But they have some UN blood. You don't necessarily need a UN budget to achieve all of that.  We have plenty other options, and indeed Parminder is right, ICANN can put into its bylaws that part of its revenues goes to that future body as a recognition of IGF making better recommendation for public policy and interest. ICANN one day says this is not its business, the next day explains us that it does because no one else does it. Amusing.
> 
> The IGF is as we know it today a dead machine. Unless CS unites and suggests (not even request) a way forward. Not necessarily a dream land, but at least something that capitalizes over the failures, the vacuums, the ideas (some clearly written in the NetMundial different statements (remember the opening speech, all the contributions, the final statement, the comments). So yes we need the UN at this stage, because IG has a BIG problem of legitimacy, a problem that the MS model has only but enlarged, taking us all to an amazing point of distrust. Anyway we can not do as if the IGF wasn't a child of the UN.
> 
> So if there is a way forward, let's take what we can from the UN to incorporate some legitimacy, democracy and trust (desire for democracy) in these discussions.
> 
> This is what I would recognized  - from people like you George  - as a fantastic achievement. 
> 
> Remember that the UN was made in a in time-breaking fashion by a club of willing over a few months during the war. 10 years of the current IGF have done what? So yes it is time for a change. A BIG on. Stop guarding the gate, open it. Then you'll be surprised by the incredible advancement of things.
> 
> JC
> 
> Le 1 sept. 2014 à 23:52, George Sadowsky a écrit :
> 
>> There are other rigidities in the UN system that may not be compatible with the overall aims of the IGF.  My Taiwan illustration was just that.   And, by the way, to get a new activity into the UN regular budget is enormously difficult; the UN relies on so-called extra-budgetary funds for many of its initiatives, and that represents insecure funding. 
>> 
>> In response to a previous post, I don't think that Carlos is suggesting that no funding come from the UN.  I note that the Internet Society has just initiated a call for funding the IGF on a more permanent basis.  In the past, ICANN has provided major funding, and so have some governments.   
>> 
>> I see nothing wrong with accepting funding from all sectors, provided that the funding is used in a fair and responsible manner and is not used to promote the special interests of the sector.  This has in part been the case so far, and is a reasonable model to promote.  You may wish to add some  caveats, but the principle stands.  All sectors do have their own interests, but none are pure evil.  All sectors have something to gain from the IGF or they would not contribute.
>> 
>> I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative mode rather than an environment of suspicion.
>> 
>> George
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 5:38 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously. 
>>> 
>>> It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature. 
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>>>> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF
>>>> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on
>>>> IGF.  
>>>> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also
>>>> long  time to take decisions due to consultations to any government,
>>>> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily
>>>> report.
>>>> Better not to go through this path.
>>>> Vanda Scartezini
>>>> Polo Consultores Associados
>>>> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
>>>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
>>>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
>>>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is
>>>>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions
>>>>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions
>>>>> made by the UN General Assembly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a
>>>>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006)
>>>>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the
>>>>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he
>>>>> showed up so that he could be denied admission.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was
>>>>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to
>>>>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This
>>>>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code
>>>>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are
>>>>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are
>>>>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic,
>>>>> bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not
>>>>> increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN
>>>>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> George 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming
>>>>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from
>>>>>> other sources.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>> I support the call.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>>>>>>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>>>>>>> stable source of funding.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>>>>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated
>>>>>>> body
>>>>>>> with institutional funding.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>>>>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>>>>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>>>>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN,
>>>>>>> measure.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>>>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>>>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>>>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>>>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>>>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>>>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>> Anne
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>>>>>>>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>>>>>>>    final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>>>>>>>    should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>>>>>>>    IGFs.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    e
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    Eduardo
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>>>>>>>    <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>        Agree.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>        At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>        "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>>>>>>        (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>>>>>>>        UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>>>>>>>        that these recommendations will be
>>>>>>>>        implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>>>>>>>        inter-alia:
>>>>>>>>        a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>>>>>>>        creative
>>>>>>>>        ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>>>>>>>        policy options;
>>>>>>>>        b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>>>>>>>        c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>>>>>>>        IGF, including
>>>>>>>>        through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>>>>>>>        d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>>>>>>>        discussions
>>>>>>>>        between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>>>>>>>        A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>>>>>>>        discussing both long
>>>>>>>>        standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>>>>>>>        the identification of
>>>>>>>>        possible ways to address them."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>        We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>>>>>>>        IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>>>>>>>        another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>        1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>        best
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>        joana
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>        On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>>>>>>>        <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>            Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>>>>>>>            this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>            _
>>>>>>>>            João Carlos Caribé
>>>>>>>>            (021) 8761 1967
>>>>>>>>            (021) 4042 7727
>>>>>>>>            Skype joaocaribe
>>>>>>>>            Enviado via iPad
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>            > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>>>            <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>>>            > Hi all,
>>>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>>>            > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>>>>>>>            BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>>>>>>>            permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>>>>>>>            limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>>>>>>>            > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>>>>>>>            BB meeting.
>>>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>>>            > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>>>>>>>            with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>>>>>>>            impression that we might be able to draft a
>>>>>>>>            cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>>>>>>>            community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>>>>>>>            support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>>>>>>>            possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>>>>>>>            enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>>>>>>>            inclusive statement.)
>>>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>>>            > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>>>>>>>            this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>>>>>>>            within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>>>>>>>            bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>>>>>>>            find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>>>>>>>            support in civil society.
>>>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>>>            > jeanette
>>>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>>>            > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>>>>>>>            If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>>>>>>>            someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>            > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>            > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>            <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>            > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>            > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>            You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>            bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>            <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>            To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>            http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>        --         --
>>>>>>>>        Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>>>>>        @joana_varon
>>>>>>>>        PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>        To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Anne Jellema
>>>>>>>> CEO
>>>>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>>>>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>>>>>>> @afjellema
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>>>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
>>>>>>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/c5a048da/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Sep  2 02:34:16 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:34:16 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54054EED.4050304@acm.org>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org>
Message-ID: <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu>

Hi all,

(sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each of 
these lists)

Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments 
received so far:

1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects in 
the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the Generaly 
Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could imply 
a change of status that we did not mean to ask for.

This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but 
that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get 
advise from the diplomats @ IGF.

2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN 
General Assembly.
Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from the 
IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if we 
cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce outcomes)

3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects 
such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF

4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style

5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate

6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF 
local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for it.
Statement should be read in the closing session?

I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are 
inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.

jeanette

Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
> (removed cross posting)
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>
> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the text
> relatively brief
>
> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the
> ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some text to that end.
>
> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the
> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected
> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years.
>   As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some examples can
> be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware of the progress being
> made on that report and whether it is available at this point.
>
> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. I support it.
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN
>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis.
>>
>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF
>> and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>
>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and
>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>
>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>
>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>
>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>
>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>
>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>
>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Tue Sep  2 03:11:03 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:11:03 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
Message-ID: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org>

This morning, the members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group who are present in Istanbul (Deirdre Williams standing in for Mawaki Chango from the IGC, myself from Best Bits, Norbert Bollow from JNC, Chat Garcia from APC and YJ Park as an observer; the others could not make it) met with Alan Marcus, Danil Kerimi and Alexandra Shaw from the World Economic Forum about our potential role in nominating representatives to the transitional steering committee of what we had all known as the NETmundial Initiative.  This followed on from a phone call that the chair of our group, Ian Peter had had with them yesterday Istanbul time.

Very interestingly one of the first points that was made in the meeting the WEF pointed out that they do not regard "NETmundial Initiative" as the name of the initiative, although some of their early champions (notably ICANN of course) have been calling it this.  So it seems that they will be willing to call it by another name from now on, and suggested "Global Net" which is an anglicised version of NETmundial.  I believe that many of us will warmly welcome this news.

Their description of their vision of the initiative was otherwise mostly consistent with earlier accounts, though they did stress that the formation of a new institution to house the initiative now seems unlikely since they have been listening to pushback about this.  They see the initiative as a platform for working groups to execute projects that the community has identified as important, and the first four projects that were unveiled at the Geneva meeting were merely intended as examples of four such projects that had been identified by the Ilves Panel, on which some "quick wins" might be achieved.

The value add of the WEF, they explained, as to bring in high-level participation from companies and governments that are otherwise not part of Internet governance discussions.  The steering committee would include all stakeholders so ensure that all perspectives have a voice about shaping the Initiative including its projects.  They are looking for a committee maximum size of about 15 people. – the other members would be 3-4 business people (including at least two representatives at CEO level), government, intergovernmental organisations, tech community (notably ISOC and ICANN) and academics (yes they confirmed an intention to treat academic community separately to Civil society or technical community or any other grouping – as per NetMundial and 1net patterns.

The original conception of WEF was that they would appoint half of the civil society representatives on the transitional steering committee because they are project partners that WEF has worked with before.  Several members of our Coordination Group suggested that there constituencies would probably push back against this, and that if the purpose of the steering committee was in part to draw on the legitimacy that civil society participation provides, it would make sense that we be empowered to self-appoint all of our own representatives.  WEF seemed to accept this counsel, with the result that we would be asked to make four appointments.

They were unclear about exactly what the time commitment for transitional steering committee representatives would be, or exactly what the responsibilities would entail, though forming an accountable permanent steering committee structure for launch around the next Davos meeting (if possible) was one of the responsibilities envisaged.  They did assure us that if travel to meetings was required, expenses would be paid for those who required this.

Criteria for appointment are still to be discussed by the Coordination Group, but from WEF's perspective, they agreed that they would not insist on a previous working relationship with WEF as a criterion, but they would require that the participants are able to be constructive and can work towards the formation of consensus.  They said that they would value people who can be bridge makers between the culture of the WEF and that of our constituencies, because they acknowledged that they would probably make (more) mistakes and would need help in correcting these. 

Examples of previous multi-stakeholder initiatives that they pointed to as being analogous to The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-as-NETmundial included Grow Africa (http://growafrica.com/) and their climate change work (http://www.weforum.org/issues/climate-change-and-green-growth).

WEF, after our pleading, have extended our deadline to submit names till September 21 – and there are still some details to finalise. The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for nominations no earlier than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process.
 
I am posting this to begin such a discussion – others present at the meeting may want to add comments of their own and discussions will also occur on other lists. 

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/2e8f1942/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/2e8f1942/attachment.sig>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Sep  2 04:38:41 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:38:41 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <BDB1A798-A04D-4665-A90E-C891A0AD39ED@gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> <BDB1A798-A04D-4665-A90E-C891A0AD39ED@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54058211.8090409@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks George, we are indeed trying to be constructive.  I have tried to 
reflect some of the previous comments in the draft, which is here at 
https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K 
<https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K>

  and will do another roundup later today.  We aim for mid-week.  In my 
view, the broader the funding the better, as it weakens  the risk of 
capture.  We cannot, as others have pointed out, go to the UN asking for 
a permanent body without describing potential funding.
Cheers and thanks for all the help and support.
Stephanie Perrin

On 2014-09-01, 17:52, George Sadowsky wrote:
> There are other rigidities in the UN system that may not be compatible 
> with the overall aims of the IGF.  My Taiwan illustration was just 
> that.   And, by the way, to get a new activity into the UN regular 
> budget is enormously difficult; the UN relies on so-called 
> extra-budgetary funds for many of its initiatives, and that represents 
> insecure funding.
>
> In response to a previous post, I don't think that Carlos is 
> suggesting that no funding come from the UN.  I note that the Internet 
> Society has just initiated a call for funding the IGF on a more 
> permanent basis.  In the past, ICANN has provided major funding, and 
> so have some governments.
>
> I see nothing wrong with accepting funding from all sectors, provided 
> that the funding is used in a fair and responsible manner and is not 
> used to promote the special interests of the sector.  This has in part 
> been the case so far, and is a reasonable model to promote.  You may 
> wish to add some  caveats, but the principle stands.  All sectors do 
> have their own interests, but none are pure evil.  All sectors have 
> something to gain from the IGF or they would not contribute.
>
> I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative 
> mode rather than an environment of suspicion.
>
> George
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 5:38 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, 
>> maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, 
>> one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised 
>> public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is 
>> being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' 
>> without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any 
>> doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the 
>> World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF 
>> is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously.
>>
>> It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered 
>> to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is 
>> wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>>> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF
>>> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on
>>> IGF.
>>> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also
>>> long  time to take decisions due to consultations to any government,
>>> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily
>>> report.
>>> Better not to go through this path.
>>> Vanda Scartezini
>>> Polo Consultores Associados
>>> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
>>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
>>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
>>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky"<george.sadowsky at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is
>>>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions
>>>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions
>>>> made by the UN General Assembly.
>>>>
>>>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a
>>>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006)
>>>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the
>>>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he
>>>> showed up so that he could be denied admission.
>>>>
>>>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was
>>>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to
>>>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This
>>>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code
>>>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.
>>>>
>>>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are
>>>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.
>>>>
>>>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are
>>>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic,
>>>> bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not
>>>> increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN
>>>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs.
>>>>
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso<ca at cafonso.ca>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming
>>>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from
>>>>> other sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> I support the call.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>>>>>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>>>>>> stable source of funding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>>>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated
>>>>>> body
>>>>>> with institutional funding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>>>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>>>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>>>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN,
>>>>>> measure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>> Anne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>>>>>>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu  <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>>>>>>     final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>>>>>>     should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>>>>>>     IGFs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     e
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Eduardo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>>>>>>     <joana at varonferraz.com  <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Agree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>>>>>         (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>>>>>>         UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>>>>>>         that these recommendations will be
>>>>>>>         implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>>>>>>         inter-alia:
>>>>>>>         a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>>>>>>         creative
>>>>>>>         ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>>>>>>         policy options;
>>>>>>>         b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>>>>>>         c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>>>>>>         IGF, including
>>>>>>>         through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>>>>>>         d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>>>>>>         discussions
>>>>>>>         between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>>>>>>         A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>>>>>>         discussing both long
>>>>>>>         standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>>>>>>         the identification of
>>>>>>>         possible ways to address them."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>>>>>>         IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>>>>>>         another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         best
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         joana
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>>>>>>         <joao.caribe at me.com  <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>>>>>>             this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             _
>>>>>>>             João Carlos Caribé
>>>>>>>             (021) 8761 1967
>>>>>>>             (021) 4042 7727
>>>>>>>             Skype joaocaribe
>>>>>>>             Enviado via iPad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>>             <jeanette at wzb.eu  <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > Hi all,
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>>>>>>             BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>>>>>>             permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>>>>>>             limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>>>>>>             > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>>>>>>             BB meeting.
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>>>>>>             with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>>>>>>             impression that we might be able to draft a
>>>>>>>             cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>>>>>>             community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>>>>>>             support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>>>>>>             possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>>>>>>             enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>>>>>>             inclusive statement.)
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>>>>>>             this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>>>>>>             within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>>>>>>             bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>>>>>>             find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>>>>>>             support in civil society.
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > jeanette
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>>>>>>             If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>>>>>>             someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>             > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>             >bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>             > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>             >http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>             bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>             To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>             http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         --         --
>>>>>>>         Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>>>>         @joana_varon
>>>>>>>         PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Anne Jellema
>>>>>>> CEO
>>>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>>>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>>>>>> @afjellema
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA |www.webfoundation.org
>>>>>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>  | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/eca90257/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Sep  2 04:42:20 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:42:20 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org>
Message-ID: <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba>

Just adding here a couple of perspectives from my earlier phone call -

The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid. Yesterday it was still NetMundial – I am personally glad they have moved away from that while they figure out what this initiative is. 

Also at my phone call they wanted to nominate two of the four civil society reps themselves – a couple of US based NGOs they work with regularly – this was identified as an issue and I am glad the CS reps were able to get that changed today.

They were also prepared to give us a more reasonable deadline for nominations than originally intended – which would have been the middle of next week!  The timetable is still tight (by September 21), but is enough time for us to discuss our levels of involvement and get a process under way at the end of this week. 

So there are some positive signs. Also the level of CS representation – 4 of a committee of 15 – is quite reasonable.

But I do get the feeling that things might continue to change and that there is a great uncertainty about the degree to which the staff assigned to this might be able to obtain strong WEF backing for initiatives – and what those initiatives might be.  

I suspect others who are at IGF might get to talk further with WEF, and those who were at the Geneva meeting might also have additional perspectives.  It would be good to share those perspectives here and on other lists so that we can react appropriately.

Ian Peter

From: Jeremy Malcolm 
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 5:11 PM
To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

This morning, the members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group who are present in Istanbul (Deirdre Williams standing in for Mawaki Chango from the IGC, myself from Best Bits, Norbert Bollow from JNC, Chat Garcia from APC and YJ Park as an observer; the others could not make it) met with Alan Marcus, Danil Kerimi and Alexandra Shaw from the World Economic Forum about our potential role in nominating representatives to the transitional steering committee of what we had all known as the NETmundial Initiative.  This followed on from a phone call that the chair of our group, Ian Peter had had with them yesterday Istanbul time.

Very interestingly one of the first points that was made in the meeting the WEF pointed out that they do not regard "NETmundial Initiative" as the name of the initiative, although some of their early champions (notably ICANN of course) have been calling it this.  So it seems that they will be willing to call it by another name from now on, and suggested "Global Net" which is an anglicised version of NETmundial.  I believe that many of us will warmly welcome this news.

Their description of their vision of the initiative was otherwise mostly consistent with earlier accounts, though they did stress that the formation of a new institution to house the initiative now seems unlikely since they have been listening to pushback about this.  They see the initiative as a platform for working groups to execute projects that the community has identified as important, and the first four projects that were unveiled at the Geneva meeting were merely intended as examples of four such projects that had been identified by the Ilves Panel, on which some "quick wins" might be achieved.

The value add of the WEF, they explained, as to bring in high-level participation from companies and governments that are otherwise not part of Internet governance discussions.  The steering committee would include all stakeholders so ensure that all perspectives have a voice about shaping the Initiative including its projects.  They are looking for a committee maximum size of about 15 people. – the other members would be 3-4 business people (including at least two representatives at CEO level), government, intergovernmental organisations, tech community (notably ISOC and ICANN) and academics (yes they confirmed an intention to treat academic community separately to Civil society or technical community or any other grouping – as per NetMundial and 1net patterns.

The original conception of WEF was that they would appoint half of the civil society representatives on the transitional steering committee because they are project partners that WEF has worked with before.  Several members of our Coordination Group suggested that there constituencies would probably push back against this, and that if the purpose of the steering committee was in part to draw on the legitimacy that civil society participation provides, it would make sense that we be empowered to self-appoint all of our own representatives.  WEF seemed to accept this counsel, with the result that we would be asked to make four appointments.

They were unclear about exactly what the time commitment for transitional steering committee representatives would be, or exactly what the responsibilities would entail, though forming an accountable permanent steering committee structure for launch around the next Davos meeting (if possible) was one of the responsibilities envisaged.  They did assure us that if travel to meetings was required, expenses would be paid for those who required this.

Criteria for appointment are still to be discussed by the Coordination Group, but from WEF's perspective, they agreed that they would not insist on a previous working relationship with WEF as a criterion, but they would require that the participants are able to be constructive and can work towards the formation of consensus.  They said that they would value people who can be bridge makers between the culture of the WEF and that of our constituencies, because they acknowledged that they would probably make (more) mistakes and would need help in correcting these. 

Examples of previous multi-stakeholder initiatives that they pointed to as being analogous to The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-as-NETmundial included Grow Africa (http://growafrica.com/) and their climate change work (http://www.weforum.org/issues/climate-change-and-green-growth).

WEF, after our pleading, have extended our deadline to submit names till September 21 – and there are still some details to finalise. The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for nominations no earlier than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process.
 
I am posting this to begin such a discussion – others present at the meeting may want to add comments of their own and discussions will also occur on other lists. 


-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/fbb4af50/attachment.htm>

From anne at webfoundation.org  Tue Sep  2 04:49:10 2014
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:49:10 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com>
 <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca>
 <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br>
 <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbGJuswDXhvXTc5GB7kBtAHS2V-KWpzBg5jw7NdimpMnig@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:38 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

> please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the
> global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed


Quoting from our post-NMI blog:

More broadly, the views of the World Social Forum
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum> (like the NETmundial
summit, another initiative memorably nurtured by the government of Brazil)
are just as vital as those of the World Economic Forum, and likely to be
diametrically opposed on some issues — isn’t that what
‘multi-stakeholderism’ means?

https://webfoundation.org/2014/08/how-can-businesses-help-us-build-the-web-we-want/
-- 
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://www.webfoundation.org/> |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/c6af4d54/attachment.htm>

From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Mon Sep  1 03:37:30 2014
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 10:37:30 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5404223A.5040600@digitaldissidents.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Jeanette,

I would also support this initiative.

Perhaps we can build on what has been done on the collaborative pad of
yesterdays BestBits meeting.


Best,

Niels


- -- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9


On 09/01/2014 10:31 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> i would support such an initiative
> 
> *Andrew Puddephatt* Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL 
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44
> (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt 
> gp-digital.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1 September 2014 09:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB
>> statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body
>> instead of  renewing its mandate for another limited term of 5 or
>> 10 years. This idea found broad support among the attendees of
>> the BB meeting.
>> 
>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other 
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be
>> able to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the
>> technical community and the private sector. (Individual
>> governments support such a statement too but I am not sure it
>> would be possible within the few days available to coordiante
>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive 
>> statement.)
>> 
>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF
>> is only an idea that needs further exploration within the
>> respective groups. So, with this email to the bb list and the IGC
>> list I am asking for your opinions to find out if such a
>> cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil society.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this
>> email does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind
>> to forward it?
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUBCI6AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp/nUH/i7JutO9LGZZCPMK7S2/cRhN
qj/JStkePFpfi7LkGvF3/pty7SlEoWB55zHRruSaIiscArUd4evPu2pRSa//JSsz
2ljtKS6X9PNUIrZiRaUqZn+SWDlJ88TMSv27+xSwQIEZL4wUV2WiOO0I1MLQ2vCZ
Yk6YPozep59MktbcDUuKzERKcy5V0s+4cee54M/OAcotIuegYt89VR7xfI3EZZuJ
TYSBfgm30c7cRgv9I+JnAOXemBu4ZeOI5ypEtvVsNHJ15thO4q1IEAxBd0RVmd4k
UoRJO01WAJ1shGK6XKINJee+/Oq94WTaxIS5XDNelYMxWXHxPCRXaI5UYP27vx4=
=f4bn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From anne at webfoundation.org  Tue Sep  2 05:22:43 2014
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:22:43 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] US State Department launches its own open internet
 petition site
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbFuszPn=3LaPXky81tpry+EsA1sCPcU0PrH2R5o1Rwujw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all

Just launched:

https://openinternet.state.gov/

Looks like State is no longer content with just funding NGOs - they now
want to *be* one! ;-)

Anyone have more info on this initiative?

Best
Anne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/3d5a8c52/attachment.htm>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Tue Sep  2 05:44:35 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:44:35 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] US State Department launches its own open internet
 petition site
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbFuszPn=3LaPXky81tpry+EsA1sCPcU0PrH2R5o1Rwujw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFwCmbFuszPn=3LaPXky81tpry+EsA1sCPcU0PrH2R5o1Rwujw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6B592C4E-3360-4BF1-88A7-D8939F5024AA@theglobaljournal.net>

Thanks Anne for sharing.


This is fully consistent with Ambassader Donahoe statement during the WEF meeting in Geneva (see video) that her only major concern was to gain legitimacy through public support. She expressed her view very clearly so that legitimacy is not about a democratic approach through governments but directly through the large number of people supporting whatever the US wants. So any initiative convening CS and any other stakeholder will be good enough to prove the legitimate support to US views of an "open Internet".

So this is the clear "technical" solution to her statement and US department approach. The choice of going after a number of supporters bring no legitimacy at all. Let's not even go back to George Sadovksy 's comment about the not-totally-representativity of the UN. 

Well, it seems like nothing changes.

JC

** Donahoe's job in Geneva is to articulate the US State department stand on all Human Rights issues. Donahoe (a Clintonette) has been the one organizing visits of Silicon Valley for foreign diplomats based in Geneva. She is also the one funding all initiatives to show how good is the US as supporting bloggers (Freedom Internet fighters...) and constantly showcasing the US as the champion of Freedom of expression. She hardly comments about mass surveillance being such a HR infringement. I would also remind everyone that the head of the US diplomats in Geneva's core mission for the last six years was to secure Intellectual property policy in favor of the US. One of the results of that aggressive IP US policy was to gain a "fast-track" process to be implemented in the US for all inventors who would wish to register a patent in the US in a very short time. That is something not very well known but with a great impact to counter the fact that China became 3 or 4 years ago the global leader in patent registrations. Just wondering i all countries are eligible for the fact-track IP desk. 



Le 2 sept. 2014 à 11:22, Anne Jellema a écrit :

> Hi all
> 
> Just launched:
> 
> https://openinternet.state.gov/
> 
> Looks like State is no longer content with just funding NGOs - they now want to *be* one! ;-)
> 
> Anyone have more info on this initiative?
> 
> Best
> Anne
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/84b2bbc1/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 06:27:03 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 06:27:03 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] US State Department launches its own open internet
 petition site
In-Reply-To: <6B592C4E-3360-4BF1-88A7-D8939F5024AA@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CAFwCmbFuszPn=3LaPXky81tpry+EsA1sCPcU0PrH2R5o1Rwujw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6B592C4E-3360-4BF1-88A7-D8939F5024AA@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfy9eGnr1H=xvWRCPKAxaC3COXEeYdw3HgSCboqsfhyCg@mail.gmail.com>

yesterday I also sent the official email from the US gov to the BB list.
You all can check it for some of the context.


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Thanks Anne for sharing.
>
>
> This is fully consistent with Ambassader Donahoe statement during the WEF
> meeting in Geneva (see video) that her only major concern was to gain
> legitimacy through public support. She expressed her view very clearly so
> that legitimacy is not about a democratic approach through governments but
> directly through the large number of people supporting whatever the US
> wants. So any initiative convening CS and any other stakeholder will be
> good enough to prove the legitimate support to US views of an "open
> Internet".
>
> So this is the clear "technical" solution to her statement and US
> department approach. The choice of going after a number of supporters bring
> no legitimacy at all. Let's not even go back to George Sadovksy 's comment
> about the not-totally-representativity of the UN.
>
> Well, it seems like nothing changes.
>
> JC
>
> ** Donahoe's job in Geneva is to articulate the US State department stand
> on all Human Rights issues. Donahoe (a Clintonette) has been the one
> organizing visits of Silicon Valley for foreign diplomats based in Geneva.
> She is also the one funding all initiatives to show how good is the US as
> supporting bloggers (Freedom Internet fighters...) and constantly
> showcasing the US as the champion of Freedom of expression. She hardly
> comments about mass surveillance being such a HR infringement. I would also
> remind everyone that the head of the US diplomats in Geneva's core mission
> for the last six years was to secure Intellectual property policy in favor
> of the US. One of the results of that aggressive IP US policy was to gain a
> "fast-track" process to be implemented in the US for all inventors who
> would wish to register a patent in the US in a very short time. That is
> something not very well known but with a great impact to counter the fact
> that China became 3 or 4 years ago the global leader in patent
> registrations. Just wondering i all countries are eligible for the
> fact-track IP desk.
>
>
>
> Le 2 sept. 2014 à 11:22, Anne Jellema a écrit :
>
> Hi all
>
> Just launched:
>
> https://openinternet.state.gov/
>
> Looks like State is no longer content with just funding NGOs - they now
> want to *be* one! ;-)
>
> Anyone have more info on this initiative?
>
> Best
> Anne
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/3bd64be3/attachment.htm>

From anne at webfoundation.org  Tue Sep  2 06:31:40 2014
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:31:40 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] US State Department launches its own open internet
 petition site
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfy9eGnr1H=xvWRCPKAxaC3COXEeYdw3HgSCboqsfhyCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFwCmbFuszPn=3LaPXky81tpry+EsA1sCPcU0PrH2R5o1Rwujw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6B592C4E-3360-4BF1-88A7-D8939F5024AA@theglobaljournal.net> <CAK-FJAfy9eGnr1H=xvWRCPKAxaC3COXEeYdw3HgSCboqsfhyCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbF2dgGpJbjq7hzpgUAeTn3-gNzV_-+e7zhruNYK02pknQ@mail.gmail.com>

Ah thanks - and apologies for inadvertent re-posting - sometimes hard to
keep up with all the traffic on the list!
Anne


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> yesterday I also sent the official email from the US gov to the BB list.
> You all can check it for some of the context.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Anne for sharing.
>>
>>
>> This is fully consistent with Ambassader Donahoe statement during the WEF
>> meeting in Geneva (see video) that her only major concern was to gain
>> legitimacy through public support. She expressed her view very clearly so
>> that legitimacy is not about a democratic approach through governments but
>> directly through the large number of people supporting whatever the US
>> wants. So any initiative convening CS and any other stakeholder will be
>> good enough to prove the legitimate support to US views of an "open
>> Internet".
>>
>> So this is the clear "technical" solution to her statement and US
>> department approach. The choice of going after a number of supporters bring
>> no legitimacy at all. Let's not even go back to George Sadovksy 's comment
>> about the not-totally-representativity of the UN.
>>
>> Well, it seems like nothing changes.
>>
>> JC
>>
>> ** Donahoe's job in Geneva is to articulate the US State department stand
>> on all Human Rights issues. Donahoe (a Clintonette) has been the one
>> organizing visits of Silicon Valley for foreign diplomats based in Geneva.
>> She is also the one funding all initiatives to show how good is the US as
>> supporting bloggers (Freedom Internet fighters...) and constantly
>> showcasing the US as the champion of Freedom of expression. She hardly
>> comments about mass surveillance being such a HR infringement. I would also
>> remind everyone that the head of the US diplomats in Geneva's core mission
>> for the last six years was to secure Intellectual property policy in favor
>> of the US. One of the results of that aggressive IP US policy was to gain a
>> "fast-track" process to be implemented in the US for all inventors who
>> would wish to register a patent in the US in a very short time. That is
>> something not very well known but with a great impact to counter the fact
>> that China became 3 or 4 years ago the global leader in patent
>> registrations. Just wondering i all countries are eligible for the
>> fact-track IP desk.
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 2 sept. 2014 à 11:22, Anne Jellema a écrit :
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Just launched:
>>
>> https://openinternet.state.gov/
>>
>> Looks like State is no longer content with just funding NGOs - they now
>> want to *be* one! ;-)
>>
>> Anyone have more info on this initiative?
>>
>> Best
>> Anne
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
>  --
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>


-- 
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://www.webfoundation.org/> |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/3b41dd9f/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Tue Sep  2 07:01:54 2014
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:01:54 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
Message-ID: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>

Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits meeting
earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement which is
in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version starting
at line 325.
Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits can be
made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of Thursday
Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
Kind regards


Joy Liddicoat




From jmalcolm at eff.org  Tue Sep  2 08:35:12 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:35:12 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>

On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits meeting
> earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
> Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement which is
> in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
> The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version starting
> at line 325.
> Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits can be
> made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of Thursday
> Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.

So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:

1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]

2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325 which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension and other issues.[1]

3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus* outcome of our Best BIts meeting.

MY QUESTION:

It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens with 1 and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what would be an appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show support for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the consensus that we reached on 3)?


[0] Current full text below:

In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)

The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.

The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance”.

In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations discuss important questions of economic and social development. They share their insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the Internet’s great potential.
 
The Secretary-General recommended that 
(a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a further five years;
(b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
 
Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)

The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.”

In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of IGF.  We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven its worth. (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate and reliable financial support. These two goals are interrelated.  To address the need for sustainable funding, the Internet Governance Forum Support Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014.  The goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote sustainable funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet community needs in order to continues its work for the global Internet development goals.

Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the continuing development of Internet governance and based on success of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN Secretary General to  establish the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent) forum.  We believe that the IGF should move beyond its initiation phase where repeated renewal by the UN General assembly is required and that it be allowed to do long range planning for its continuing and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder foundation.


[1] Current full text below:

We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,  re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying concerns  for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF  in Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and then the specific  demands below)

1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to human rights.

2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and strengthened. 

3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at  potential changes that could lead to its further strengthening.

4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but express concerns about the number of new processes which civil society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.

5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by, for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to use regional and national IGFs as part of this process.

6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken into account.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/d63192ed/attachment.sig>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Sep  2 08:53:16 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:53:16 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
 The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba>
References: <F90D94E7-EDC3-488F-85C3-D72635ECDFD1@eff.org> <EC7A26B147CF4742A91F724481F3A4EC@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <153E9013-8118-439C-AE63-08B04F2D4D72@cafonso.ca>

"The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)

sent from a dumbphone

> On 02/09/2014, at 11:42, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> Just adding here a couple of perspectives from my earlier phone call -
>  
> The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid. Yesterday it was still NetMundial – I am personally glad they have moved away from that while they figure out what this initiative is.
>  
> Also at my phone call they wanted to nominate two of the four civil society reps themselves – a couple of US based NGOs they work with regularly – this was identified as an issue and I am glad the CS reps were able to get that changed today.
>  
> They were also prepared to give us a more reasonable deadline for nominations than originally intended – which would have been the middle of next week!  The timetable is still tight (by September 21), but is enough time  for us to discuss our levels of involvement and get a process under way at the end of this week.
>  
> So there are some positive signs. Also the level of CS representation – 4 of a committee of 15 – is quite reasonable.
>  
> But I do get the feeling that things might continue to change and that there is a great uncertainty about the degree to which the staff assigned to this might be able to obtain strong WEF backing for initiatives – and what those initiatives might be. 
>  
> I suspect others who are at IGF might get to talk further with WEF, and those who were at the Geneva meeting might also have additional perspectives.  It would be good to share those perspectives here and on other lists so that we can react appropriately.
>  
> Ian Peter
>  
> From: Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 5:11 PM
> To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
>  
> This morning, the members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group who are present in Istanbul (Deirdre Williams standing in for Mawaki Chango from the IGC, myself from Best Bits, Norbert Bollow from JNC, Chat Garcia from APC and YJ Park as an observer; the others could not make it) met with Alan Marcus, Danil Kerimi and Alexandra Shaw from the World Economic Forum about our potential role in nominating representatives to the transitional steering committee of what we had all known as the NETmundial Initiative.  This followed on from a phone call that the chair of our group, Ian Peter had had with them yesterday Istanbul time.
>  
> Very interestingly one of the first points that was made in the meeting the WEF pointed out that they do not regard "NETmundial Initiative" as the name of the initiative, although some of their early champions (notably ICANN of course) have been calling it this.  So it seems that they will be willing to call it by another name from now on, and suggested "Global Net" which is an anglicised version of NETmundial.  I believe that many of us will warmly welcome this news.
>  
> Their description of their vision of the initiative was otherwise mostly consistent with earlier accounts, though they did stress that the formation of a new institution to house the initiative now seems unlikely since they have been listening to pushback about this.  They see the initiative as a platform for working groups to execute projects that the community has identified as important, and the first four projects that were unveiled at the Geneva meeting were merely intended as examples of four such projects that had been identified by the Ilves Panel, on which some "quick wins" might be achieved.
>  
> The value add of the WEF, they explained, as to bring in high-level participation from companies and governments that are otherwise not part of Internet governance discussions.  The steering committee would include all stakeholders so ensure that all perspectives have a voice about shaping the Initiative including its projects.  They are looking for a committee maximum size of about 15 people. – the other members would be 3-4 business people (including at least two representatives at CEO level), government, intergovernmental organisations, tech community (notably ISOC and ICANN) and academics (yes they confirmed an intention to treat academic community separately to Civil society or technical community or any other grouping – as per NetMundial and 1net patterns.
>  
> The original conception of WEF was that they would appoint half of the civil society representatives on the transitional steering committee because they are project partners that WEF has worked with before.  Several members of our Coordination Group suggested that there constituencies would probably push back against this, and that if the purpose of the steering committee was in part to draw on the legitimacy that civil society participation provides, it would make sense that we be empowered to self-appoint all of our own representatives.  WEF seemed to accept this counsel, with the result that we would be asked to make four appointments.
>  
> They were unclear about exactly what the time commitment for transitional steering committee representatives would be, or exactly what the responsibilities would entail, though forming an accountable permanent steering committee structure for launch around the next Davos meeting (if possible) was one of the responsibilities envisaged.  They did assure us that if travel to meetings was required, expenses would be paid for those who required this.
>  
> Criteria for appointment are still to be discussed by the Coordination Group, but from WEF's perspective, they agreed that they would not insist on a previous working relationship with WEF as a criterion, but they would require that the participants are able to be constructive and can work towards the formation of consensus.  They said that they would value people who can be bridge makers between the culture of the WEF and that of our constituencies, because they acknowledged that they would probably make (more) mistakes and would need help in correcting these.
>  
> Examples of previous multi-stakeholder initiatives that they pointed to as being analogous to The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-as-NETmundial included Grow Africa (http://growafrica.com/) and their climate change work (http://www.weforum.org/issues/climate-change-and-green-growth).
>  
> WEF, after our pleading, have extended our deadline to submit names till September 21 – and there are still some details to finalise. The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for nominations no earlier than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process.
>  
> I am posting this to begin such a discussion – others present at the meeting may want to add comments of their own and discussions will also occur on other lists. 
>  
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>  
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>  
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/05c1f752/attachment.htm>

From bankston at opentechinstitute.org  Tue Sep  2 09:13:14 2014
From: bankston at opentechinstitute.org (Kevin Bankston)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:13:14 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org> <CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
Message-ID: <8DD54C68-71F5-42D2-BBC6-52F38732E7A6@opentechinstitute.org>

Jeremy, you are a treasure.  Thank you for clarifying matters.
_____________________________________
Kevin S. Bankston
Policy Director, Open Technology Institute
New America Foundation
1899 L Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
bankston at opentechinstitute.org
Phone: 202-596-3415
Fax: 202-986-3696
@kevinbankston

On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits meeting
>> earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
>> Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement which is
>> in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>> The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version starting
>> at line 325.
>> Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits can be
>> made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of Thursday
>> Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
> 
> So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
> 
> 1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
> 
> 2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325 which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension and other issues.[1]
> 
> 3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus* outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
> 
> MY QUESTION:
> 
> It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens with 1 and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what would be an appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show support for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the consensus that we reached on 3)?
> 
> 
> [0] Current full text below:
> 
> In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
> 
> The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
> 
> The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance”.
> 
> In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations discuss important questions of economic and social development. They share their insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the Internet’s great potential.
> 
> The Secretary-General recommended that 
> (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a further five years;
> (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
> States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
> 
> Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
> 
> The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them.”
> 
> In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of IGF.  We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven its worth. (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate and reliable financial support. These two goals are interrelated.  To address the need for sustainable funding, the Internet Governance Forum Support Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014.  The goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote sustainable funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet community needs in order to continues its work for the global Internet development goals.
> 
> Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the continuing development of Internet governance and based on success of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN Secretary General to  establish the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent) forum.  We believe that the IGF should move beyond its initiation phase where repeated renewal by the UN General assembly is required and that it be allowed to do long range planning for its continuing and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder foundation.
> 
> 
> [1] Current full text below:
> 
> We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,  re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying concerns  for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF  in Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and then the specific  demands below)
> 
> 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to human rights.
> 
> 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and strengthened. 
> 
> 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at  potential changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
> 
> 4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but express concerns about the number of new processes which civil society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.
> 
> 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by, for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to use regional and national IGFs as part of this process.
> 
> 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken into account.
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> 


From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:15:15 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:15:15 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>
	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAevjPPbK6Ca6-eUs_kD4uLSw-hA_gkLm6UF7u1xvXAoqg@mail.gmail.com>

just a little observation - but I will put more time into this soon

Lets unify the use of the Brazil meeting as NETMundial or "Brazil's
NETMundial" "or Global Multi...etc etc ..meeting" - notice the caps. Just
to be sure the support giving is regarding what happened in Brazil and not
the ICANN+WEF initiative.


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits meeting
> > earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
> > Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement which is
> > in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
> > The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version starting
> > at line 325.
> > Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits can be
> > made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of Thursday
> > Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>
> So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>
> 1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
> *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>
> 2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325 which is
> a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension and other
> issues.[1]
>
> 3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
> establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum within the
> framework of the UN, that should be reformed and strengthened," which has
> the distinction of being a *consensus* outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>
> MY QUESTION:
>
> It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
> individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens with 1
> and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at
> http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what would be an
> appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show support for 1 (I
> don't suppose we can assume it inherits the consensus that we reached on 3)?
>
>
> [0] Current full text below:
>
> In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the Tunis
> Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy
> dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph
> 72, Tunis Agenda)
>
> The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating to
> key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in the Tunis
> Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
> stability and development of the Internet in developed and developing
> countries. The Forum was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms,
> institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
> non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
> day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>
> The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with
> Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make
> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth
> session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF,
> underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to the
> broader dialogue on global Internet governance”.
>
> In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the UN
> Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is a
> place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and
> international organizations discuss important questions of economic and
> social development. They share their insights and achievements and build a
> common understanding of the Internet’s great potential.
>
> The Secretary-General recommended that
> (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a
> further five years;
> (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
> States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the
> outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>
> Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
> preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for
> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 New
> York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>
> The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in
> the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that there
> is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important
> recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN CSTD working
> group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a
> strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long
> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
> identification of possible ways to address them.”
>
> In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of IGF.  We ,
> the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven its worth.
> (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on the success and to
> strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with the Tunis Agenda, and to
> give it a solid mandate and reliable financial support. These two goals are
> interrelated.  To address the need for sustainable funding, the Internet
> Governance Forum Support Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed
> at IGF 2014.  The goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote
> sustainable funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other
> existing funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
> are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet community
> needs in order to continues its work for the global Internet development
> goals.
>
> Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the continuing
> development of Internet governance and based on success of the two 5 year
> periods of IGF operation, we request the UN Secretary General to  establish
> the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent) forum.  We believe that the IGF should
> move beyond its initiation phase where repeated renewal by the UN General
> assembly is required and that it be allowed to do long range planning for
> its continuing and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary
> General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure
> and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder foundation.
>
>
> [1] Current full text below:
>
> We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
> re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying concerns  for
> all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF  in
> Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and then the specific  demands
> below)
>
> 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of
> expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation to
> internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits welcomes
> the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society
> organizations to address this threat to human rights.
>
> 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
> multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should be
> reformed and strengthened.
>
> 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF post-Istanbul
> (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at  potential
> changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
>
> 4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but express
> concerns about the number of new processes which civil society is being
> asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call for it to continue as the
> key forum for internet governance issues.
>
> 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by, for
> example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA and Brazil
> who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to use regional and
> national IGFs as part of this process.
>
> 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to ensure
> that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken into account.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/e41ef93e/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:28:50 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:28:50 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <8DD54C68-71F5-42D2-BBC6-52F38732E7A6@opentechinstitute.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>
	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
	<8DD54C68-71F5-42D2-BBC6-52F38732E7A6@opentechinstitute.org>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAf8JX0Zt8_VKH+5aSo+Or3e=simx21mQodJfDLrPbEq-Q@mail.gmail.com>

and BB's text as of now with comments:

https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y

-- sign-on statement (these can also be notes for Burcu's closing address?)

We,   the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying concerns  for
all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF  in
Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and then the specific  demands
below)

1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of
expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation to
internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits welcomes
the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society
organizations to address this threat to human rights.

(Brett: I fully support the statement but think that the reference to the
Turkish environment above should come as the final stand alone point after
the 5 substantive points below)

2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder
 forum within the framework of the United Nations, that should be reformed
and strengthened.

3. We call for a more thorough and timely review of the IGF
post-Istanbul (rather
than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at  potential changes that
could lead to its further strengthening.

4 . We support the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the
Internet  - known as the NETMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
express concerns about the number of new processes which civil society is
being asked to be involved outside of the IGF (Carol's comment: this part
locks weird.."express concerns to be invited"??!!! many times CS complains
it was not invited and now it is comparing it is being invited?! ah!. Ok,
we need to rephrase this concern. It is more about "distractions that do
not add value..." than about "being invited" . So I suggest: "but express
concerns about the number of parallel initiatives that might distract
stakeholders from process where the added value is clear") .and call for it
to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.

5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap set in its
outcome document by, for example, focusing on net neutrality and ask the MAG
, UNDESA and Brazil - the host of the 2015 IGF - to build on this roadmap,
and to build upon the regional and national IGFs as core opportunities that
feed into this process.

6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities (Carol's
comment: suggest listing them) to ensure that stakeholders interests and
views are heard and taken into account.



On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Kevin Bankston <
bankston at opentechinstitute.org> wrote:

> Jeremy, you are a treasure.  Thank you for clarifying matters.
> _____________________________________
> Kevin S. Bankston
> Policy Director, Open Technology Institute
> New America Foundation
> 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400
> Washington, DC 20036
> bankston at opentechinstitute.org
> Phone: 202-596-3415
> Fax: 202-986-3696
> @kevinbankston
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits meeting
> >> earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
> >> Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement which is
> >> in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
> >> The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version starting
> >> at line 325.
> >> Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits can be
> >> made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of Thursday
> >> Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
> >
> > So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
> >
> > 1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
> *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
> >
> > 2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325 which
> is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension and other
> issues.[1]
> >
> > 3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
> establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum within the
> framework of the UN, that should be reformed and strengthened," which has
> the distinction of being a *consensus* outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
> >
> > MY QUESTION:
> >
> > It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
> individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens with 1
> and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at
> http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what would be an
> appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show support for 1 (I
> don't suppose we can assume it inherits the consensus that we reached on 3)?
> >
> >
> > [0] Current full text below:
> >
> > In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the
> Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder
> policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (Footnote:
> paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
> >
> > The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating to
> key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in the Tunis
> Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
> stability and development of the Internet in developed and developing
> countries. The Forum was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms,
> institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
> non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
> day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
> >
> > The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with
> Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make
> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth
> session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF,
> underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to the
> broader dialogue on global Internet governance”.
> >
> > In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the UN
> Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is a
> place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and
> international organizations discuss important questions of economic and
> social development. They share their insights and achievements and build a
> common understanding of the Internet’s great potential.
> >
> > The Secretary-General recommended that
> > (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a
> further five years;
> > (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
> > States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the
> outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
> >
> > Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
> preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for
> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 New
> York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
> >
> > The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in
> the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that there
> is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important
> recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN CSTD working
> group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a
> strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long
> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
> identification of possible ways to address them.”
> >
> > In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of IGF.  We
> , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven its worth.
> (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on the success and to
> strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with the Tunis Agenda, and to
> give it a solid mandate and reliable financial support. These two goals are
> interrelated.  To address the need for sustainable funding, the Internet
> Governance Forum Support Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed
> at IGF 2014.  The goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote
> sustainable funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other
> existing funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
> are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet community
> needs in order to continues its work for the global Internet development
> goals.
> >
> > Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the
> continuing development of Internet governance and based on success of the
> two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN Secretary General
> to  establish the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent) forum.  We believe that
> the IGF should move beyond its initiation phase where repeated renewal by
> the UN General assembly is required and that it be allowed to do long range
> planning for its continuing and evolving work. We also request that the UN
> Secretary General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its
> structure and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder
> foundation.
> >
> >
> > [1] Current full text below:
> >
> > We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
> re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying concerns  for
> all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF  in
> Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and then the specific  demands
> below)
> >
> > 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of
> expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation to
> internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits welcomes
> the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society
> organizations to address this threat to human rights.
> >
> > 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
> multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should be
> reformed and strengthened.
> >
> > 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF
> post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at
> potential changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
> >
> > 4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
> express concerns about the number of new processes which civil society is
> being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call for it to continue
> as the key forum for internet governance issues.
> >
> > 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by, for
> example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA and Brazil
> who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to use regional and
> national IGFs as part of this process.
> >
> > 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to ensure
> that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken into account.
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy Malcolm
> > Senior Global Policy Analyst
> > Electronic Frontier Foundation
> > https://eff.org
> > jmalcolm at eff.org
> >
> > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> >
> > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/6d270603/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 03:39:52 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:39:52 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164261A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <2964D218-6A04-4727-99BF-0B3FA82D754E@gmail.com>

Definitely support

Bill

On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> I fully support this idea. One Problem - which probably has to be touched by the Statement - would be the future relationship to UNDESA and the status of the MAG.
> 
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 10:33
> An: Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Betreff: [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that 
> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing 
> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
> 
> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other 
> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able 
> to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical 
> community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a 
> statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days 
> available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an 
> all inclusive statement.)
> 
> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only 
> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, 
> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your 
> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find 
> support in civil society.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email 
> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:37:09 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:37:09 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAf8JX0Zt8_VKH+5aSo+Or3e=simx21mQodJfDLrPbEq-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>
	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
	<8DD54C68-71F5-42D2-BBC6-52F38732E7A6@opentechinstitute.org>
	<CAK-FJAf8JX0Zt8_VKH+5aSo+Or3e=simx21mQodJfDLrPbEq-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdpJtHvzATJ3-eV-TnFV2wnFJDK_PHB+8AsQOtBgG1rJA@mail.gmail.com>

and regarding Jeremy's question:

my suggestion

(a) regarding statement (1) - let organizations decide by themselves. I do
not think we have time for consensus and I agree it is getting tricky,
since dealing with other issues beyond the clear BB consensus.  But
Jeannete is still looking for suggestions in developing it.

(b) regarding statement (2)  - it still needs work. And yes, I agree it
should be in the BB for members to sign it. And definitely Burcu could
refer to it.

(c) regarding statement 3 - it is an interesting idea to "recording 3 on
the "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at
http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014 " BUT we also have the meeting
report to look for inputs for it. The report has been consolidated and
already shared with the steering committee. I am waiting for the SC to
comment (deadline today), so we can re-consolidate and send to all at BB.
So we may want to wait to put anything up for a while and also give more
time for folks to add and review it without rush.

Cheers,

C


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com
> wrote:

> and BB's text as of now with comments:
>
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>
> -- sign-on statement (these can also be notes for Burcu's closing
> address?)
>
> We,   the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
> re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying concerns  for
> all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF  in
> Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and then the specific  demands
> below)
>
> 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of
> expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation to
> internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits welcomes
> the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society
> organizations to address this threat to human rights.
>
> (Brett: I fully support the statement but think that the reference to the
> Turkish environment above should come as the final stand alone point after
> the 5 substantive points below)
>
> 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>  multistakeholder forum within the framework of the United Nations, that
> should be reformed and strengthened.
>
> 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review of the IGF post-Istanbul
> (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at  potential
> changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
>
> 4 . We support the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the
> Internet  - known as the NETMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
> express concerns about the number of new processes which civil society is
> being asked to be involved outside of the IGF (Carol's comment: this part
> locks weird.."express concerns to be invited"??!!! many times CS complains
> it was not invited and now it is comparing it is being invited?! ah!. Ok,
> we need to rephrase this concern. It is more about "distractions that do
> not add value..." than about "being invited" . So I suggest: "but express
> concerns about the number of parallel initiatives that might distract
> stakeholders from process where the added value is clear") .and call for
> it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.
>
> 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap set in its
> outcome document by, for example, focusing on net neutrality and ask the
> MAG, UNDESA and Brazil - the host of the 2015 IGF - to build on this
> roadmap, and to build upon the regional and national IGFs as core
> opportunities that feed into this process.
>
> 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities (Carol's
> comment: suggest listing them) to ensure that stakeholders interests and
> views are heard and taken into account.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Kevin Bankston <
> bankston at opentechinstitute.org> wrote:
>
>> Jeremy, you are a treasure.  Thank you for clarifying matters.
>> _____________________________________
>> Kevin S. Bankston
>> Policy Director, Open Technology Institute
>> New America Foundation
>> 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400
>> Washington, DC 20036
>> bankston at opentechinstitute.org
>> Phone: 202-596-3415
>> Fax: 202-986-3696
>> @kevinbankston
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits meeting
>> >> earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
>> >> Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement which is
>> >> in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>> >> The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version
>> starting
>> >> at line 325.
>> >> Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits can
>> be
>> >> made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of Thursday
>> >> Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>> >
>> > So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>> >
>> > 1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
>> *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>> >
>> > 2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325 which
>> is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension and other
>> issues.[1]
>> >
>> > 3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
>> establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum within the
>> framework of the UN, that should be reformed and strengthened," which has
>> the distinction of being a *consensus* outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>> >
>> > MY QUESTION:
>> >
>> > It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
>> individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens with 1
>> and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at
>> http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what would be an
>> appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show support for 1 (I
>> don't suppose we can assume it inherits the consensus that we reached on 3)?
>> >
>> >
>> > [0] Current full text below:
>> >
>> > In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the
>> Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder
>> policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (Footnote:
>> paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>> >
>> > The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating
>> to key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in the
>> Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
>> stability and development of the Internet in developed and developing
>> countries. The Forum was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms,
>> institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
>> non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
>> day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>> >
>> > The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
>> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with
>> Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make
>> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth
>> session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF,
>> underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to the
>> broader dialogue on global Internet governance”.
>> >
>> > In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the
>> UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is
>> a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and
>> international organizations discuss important questions of economic and
>> social development. They share their insights and achievements and build a
>> common understanding of the Internet’s great potential.
>> >
>> > The Secretary-General recommended that
>> > (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a
>> further five years;
>> > (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
>> > States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the
>> outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>> >
>> > Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
>> preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for
>> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 New
>> York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>> >
>> > The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in
>> the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that there
>> is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important
>> recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN CSTD working
>> group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a
>> strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long
>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
>> identification of possible ways to address them.”
>> >
>> > In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of IGF.
>> We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven its worth.
>> (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on the success and to
>> strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with the Tunis Agenda, and to
>> give it a solid mandate and reliable financial support. These two goals are
>> interrelated.  To address the need for sustainable funding, the Internet
>> Governance Forum Support Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed
>> at IGF 2014.  The goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote
>> sustainable funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other
>> existing funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
>> are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet community
>> needs in order to continues its work for the global Internet development
>> goals.
>> >
>> > Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the
>> continuing development of Internet governance and based on success of the
>> two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN Secretary General
>> to  establish the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent) forum.  We believe that
>> the IGF should move beyond its initiation phase where repeated renewal by
>> the UN General assembly is required and that it be allowed to do long range
>> planning for its continuing and evolving work. We also request that the UN
>> Secretary General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its
>> structure and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder
>> foundation.
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] Current full text below:
>> >
>> > We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
>> re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying concerns  for
>> all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF  in
>> Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and then the specific  demands
>> below)
>> >
>> > 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of
>> expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation to
>> internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits welcomes
>> the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society
>> organizations to address this threat to human rights.
>> >
>> > 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>> multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should be
>> reformed and strengthened.
>> >
>> > 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF
>> post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at
>> potential changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
>> >
>> > 4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
>> express concerns about the number of new processes which civil society is
>> being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call for it to continue
>> as the key forum for internet governance issues.
>> >
>> > 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by, for
>> example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA and Brazil
>> who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to use regional and
>> national IGFs as part of this process.
>> >
>> > 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
>> ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken into
>> account.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeremy Malcolm
>> > Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> > Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> > https://eff.org
>> > jmalcolm at eff.org
>> >
>> > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> >
>> > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> >
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>


-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/eb69884c/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Sep  2 10:52:40 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:22:40 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbGJuswDXhvXTc5GB7kBtAHS2V-KWpzBg5jw7NdimpMnig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> <CAFwCmbGJuswDXhvXTc5GB7kBtAHS2V-KWpzBg5jw7NdimpMnig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5405D9B8.5050205@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:19 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:38 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to
>     hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed
>
>
> Quoting from our post-NMI blog:
>
> More broadly, the views of the World Social Forum 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum> (like the 
> NETmundial summit, another initiative memorably nurtured by the 
> government of Brazil) are just as vital as those of the World Economic 
> Forum, and likely to be diametrically opposed on some issues — isn’t 
> that what ‘multi-stakeholderism’ means?

Yes, Anne, I read the blog, but reserved my comments for later...

Just on the point above, I have nothing against taking 'the views of 
WEF' as you ask for doing for WSF above... Of course everyone should 
contribute views. However, we all know that WEF's NMI is not about 
contributing WEF's views, it is about institutionalising something that 
is supposed to crystallise the spirit (variously interpreted) of Net 
Mundial, as a/ the key global IG process.  I meant in that sense "to 
hold the global IG process together". And of course your blog does not 
suggest such a role for the World Social Forum. It is a bit of an 
exclusive role in that sense,  I think we need to avoid confusion 
between (1) something being just another global IG initiative and (2) 
the kind of special aspirations that the WEF's NM initiative has. Of 
course as just another initiative no one can have any problem with it. 
In fact that is what I said clearly in my first posting on the WEF's NM 
Initiative on the IGC list.

parminder
>
> https://webfoundation.org/2014/08/how-can-businesses-help-us-build-the-web-we-want/
> -- 
> Anne Jellema
> CEO
> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> @afjellema
> *
> *
> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, 
> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org 
> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/c76f2e5f/attachment.htm>

From andrew at gp-digital.org  Tue Sep  2 10:55:49 2014
From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:55:49 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>
	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CAOi1r6aDndCHmpqHwsBov0MycQBmUgxEqt+=ZgHVwZESNjky1g@mail.gmail.com>

can both statements - short and long be posted for approval?

*Andrew Puddephatt*
Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org




On 2 September 2014 13:35, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits meeting
> > earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
> > Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement which is
> > in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
> > The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version starting
> > at line 325.
> > Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits can be
> > made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of Thursday
> > Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>
> So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>
> 1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
> *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>
> 2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325 which is
> a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension and other
> issues.[1]
>
> 3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
> establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum within the
> framework of the UN, that should be reformed and strengthened," which has
> the distinction of being a *consensus* outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>
> MY QUESTION:
>
> It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
> individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens with 1
> and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at
> http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what would be an
> appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show support for 1 (I
> don't suppose we can assume it inherits the consensus that we reached on 3)?
>
>
> [0] Current full text below:
>
> In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the Tunis
> Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy
> dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph
> 72, Tunis Agenda)
>
> The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues relating to
> key elements of Internet governance, such as those enumerated in the Tunis
> Agenda, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
> stability and development of the Internet in developed and developing
> countries. The Forum was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms,
> institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
> non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
> day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>
> The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with
> Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make
> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth
> session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF,
> underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to the
> broader dialogue on global Internet governance”.
>
> In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the UN
> Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and valuable. It is a
> place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and
> international organizations discuss important questions of economic and
> social development. They share their insights and achievements and build a
> common understanding of the Internet’s great potential.
>
> The Secretary-General recommended that
> (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended for a
> further five years;
> (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
> States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of the
> outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>
> Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
> preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for
> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 2010 New
> York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>
> The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated in
> the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014, that there
> is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important
> recommendations to that end had already been made by the UN CSTD working
> group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a
> strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long
> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
> identification of possible ways to address them.”
>
> In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of IGF.  We ,
> the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven its worth.
> (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on the success and to
> strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with the Tunis Agenda, and to
> give it a solid mandate and reliable financial support. These two goals are
> interrelated.  To address the need for sustainable funding, the Internet
> Governance Forum Support Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed
> at IGF 2014.  The goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote
> sustainable funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other
> existing funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
> are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet community
> needs in order to continues its work for the global Internet development
> goals.
>
> Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the continuing
> development of Internet governance and based on success of the two 5 year
> periods of IGF operation, we request the UN Secretary General to  establish
> the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent) forum.  We believe that the IGF should
> move beyond its initiation phase where repeated renewal by the UN General
> assembly is required and that it be allowed to do long range planning for
> its continuing and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary
> General work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure
> and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder foundation.
>
>
> [1] Current full text below:
>
> We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
> re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying concerns  for
> all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF  in
> Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and then the specific  demands
> below)
>
> 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of
> expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation to
> internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore Best Bits welcomes
> the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society
> organizations to address this threat to human rights.
>
> 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
> multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should be
> reformed and strengthened.
>
> 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF post-Istanbul
> (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at  potential
> changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
>
> 4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but express
> concerns about the number of new processes which civil society is being
> asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call for it to continue as the
> key forum for internet governance issues.
>
> 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by, for
> example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA and Brazil
> who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to use regional and
> national IGFs as part of this process.
>
> 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to ensure
> that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken into account.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/274123f7/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Sep  2 11:03:47 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:03:47 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca>

Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft statement 
on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on various aspects 
of the document and made the required revisions. Please send your 
comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and formal approval 
process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on the pad at 
https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
Kind regards,
Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each of 
> these lists)
>
> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments 
> received so far:
>
> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects 
> in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the 
> Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request 
> could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>
> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but 
> that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get 
> advise from the diplomats @ IGF.
>
> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN 
> General Assembly.
> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from 
> the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if 
> we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce 
> outcomes)
>
> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects 
> such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF
>
> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>
> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>
> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF 
> local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for 
> it.
> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>
> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are 
> inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>> (removed cross posting)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>>
>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the text
>> relatively brief
>>
>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the
>> ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some text to that 
>> end.
>>
>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the
>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected
>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years.
>>   As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some examples 
>> can
>> be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware of the progress being
>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point.
>>
>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. I 
>>> support it.
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette 
>>> Hofmann
>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN
>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent 
>>> basis.
>>>
>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF
>>> and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>
>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and
>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>
>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>
>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>
>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>
>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>
>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>
>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/847fda73/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Recommendation for consideration to the UN General Assembly for a permanent mandate?of the Internet Governance Forum.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 138333 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/847fda73/attachment.docx>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Sep  2 12:24:50 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:24:50 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] {Filename?} Re: [discuss] Draft statement on making
 IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu>

One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of 
improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will 
always be in need of evolution.

jeanette

Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill:
> permanent implies that no further evolution/change is needed/required/desired.
> Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development?
>
>
> /bill
> PO Box 12317
> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> 310.322.8102
>
> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed (UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.
>>
>> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on various aspects of the document and made the required revisions.  Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and formal approval process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on the pad at  https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>> Kind regards,
>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
>> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each of these lists)
>>>
>>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments received so far:
>>>
>>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>>>
>>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get advise from the diplomats @ IGF.
>>>
>>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN General Assembly.
>>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce outcomes)
>>>
>>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF
>>>
>>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>>>
>>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>>>
>>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for it.
>>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>>>
>>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>>> (removed cross posting)
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the text
>>>> relatively brief
>>>>
>>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
>>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the
>>>> ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some text to that end.
>>>>
>>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the
>>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected
>>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years.
>>>>    As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some examples can
>>>> be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware of the progress being
>>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. I support it.
>>>>>
>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN
>>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF
>>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and
>>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>>
>>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat"
>> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus.
>> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined.
>>
>> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep  2 08:04:46 2014:
>>    MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat)
>>
>> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902 (message s82F4YpS009135).
>>
>> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it,
>> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance.  If this
>> is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the message.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> IPC Computing Services
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 11:54:02 2014
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:54:02 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss]  Re: Draft statement on making IGF
 permanent
In-Reply-To: <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu> <33C5BC0A-71EE-4BEB-9393-9865DFD98319@isi.edu> <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org>
Message-ID: <B7FBD1F6-D1DC-48F6-8744-C5F4DB8E4BE3@gmail.com>

[cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]

I agree with Nick.  In fact, this is a strong reason not to ask for permanence for the IGF, but rather to resort to Christian De Larrinaga's earlier suggestion.  Once something is permanent in the UN System, it will remain there as the individuals employed by it begin to assert increasingly strong vested interests in its continuation.  To repeat Christian's comments:

> I will only add to my last comment that I don't understand the diplomatic or institutional implications of calling for "permanent" mandate rather than a "continuing or open-ended mandate".     
> 
> I expect the point behind this proposal is not to enshrine IGF as a forever fixture on the world but to prolong and enhance the IGF at the UN. That seems laudable. 
> 
> From a purely semantic perspective I prefer the term "continuing" or "open ended" to "permanent".  The formation of the IGF Support Association it is timely to ask the UN to continue its mandate now. So I thank those who have taken the initiative to write this. 

Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars, and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the IGF within the UN to produce any better results.

George  




On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:

> Standing bodies - and even institutions - in the UN system rarely ever get abolished, even when they are clearly overtaken by events. 
> 
> Just for information.
> 
> On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:30, manning bill <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> it is rare to find a human structure that is “permanent”, so perhaps, in this case, the term is more a term of art, to deal with the UN.
>> I can see a possible future in which the IGF has been overcome by events - in which case, having a permanent, but useless structure becomes
>> an artifact where zero real work gets done.  
>> 
>> /bill
>> PO Box 12317
>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>> 310.322.8102
>> 
>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 9:24, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>> 
>>> One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will always be in need of evolution.
>>> 
>>> jeanette
>>> 
>>> Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill:
>>>> permanent implies that no further evolution/change is needed/required/desired.
>>>> Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> /bill
>>>> PO Box 12317
>>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>>>> 310.322.8102
>>>> 
>>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed (UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on various aspects of the document and made the required revisions.  Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and formal approval process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on the pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
>>>>> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each of these lists)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments received so far:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get advise from the diplomats @ IGF.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN General Assembly.
>>>>>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce outcomes)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for it.
>>>>>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>>>>>> (removed cross posting)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the text
>>>>>>> relatively brief
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
>>>>>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the
>>>>>>> ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some text to that end.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the
>>>>>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected
>>>>>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years.
>>>>>>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some examples can
>>>>>>> be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware of the progress being
>>>>>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. I support it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>>>>>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN
>>>>>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF
>>>>>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and
>>>>>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat"
>>>>> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus.
>>>>> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep 2 08:04:46 2014:
>>>>> MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902 (message s82F4YpS009135).
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it,
>>>>> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance. If this
>>>>> is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the message.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> 
>>>>> IPC Computing Services
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> Executive Director, Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance (IDEA) 
> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
> email: nashton at internet-ecosystem.org
> Jabber/GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
> PGP Fingerprint: BFD5  DF7 7 2E D5 8 636  92E7  735 7 07 03 7 727  9B0A  522 6
> Skype: nashtonhart
> www.internet-ecosystem.org
> 
> One-click digital business card for your address book: http://evaunt.me/vEbDF/NickAshton-Hart
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


From kichango at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 12:18:10 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:18:10 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Re: Draft statement on making IGF
 permanent
In-Reply-To: <B7FBD1F6-D1DC-48F6-8744-C5F4DB8E4BE3@gmail.com>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu>
 <33C5BC0A-71EE-4BEB-9393-9865DFD98319@isi.edu> <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org>
 <B7FBD1F6-D1DC-48F6-8744-C5F4DB8E4BE3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-wgfBHyhvb9Q4puC+HR7oS4X0_H+yqm76QOGUNiYAiPw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi George,

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:54 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
wrote:

> [cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]
>
> <snippet>
>
> Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of
> computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the
> committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID
> from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to
> assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars,
> and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the
> center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of
> more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the
> IGF within the UN to produce any better results.
>

Just to make sure I understand you well, isn't the structure and the
participatory model of IGF different enough from those two examples you
just cited so as to expect different results regardless of the level of
institutionalization with the UN? Otherwise stated, are you assuming with
your above assertion that an evolution toward a "permanent" body within the
UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would necessarily mean the
disappearance of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up nature of the
IGF processes?

Again and to state it more explicitly, by asking this, I'm not necessarily
advocating the creation of a new UN body for IGF.
Thanks,

Mawaki

>
> George
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <
> nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
>
> > Standing bodies - and even institutions - in the UN system rarely ever
> get abolished, even when they are clearly overtaken by events.
> >
> > Just for information.
> >
> > On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:30, manning bill <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> it is rare to find a human structure that is "permanent", so perhaps,
> in this case, the term is more a term of art, to deal with the UN.
> >> I can see a possible future in which the IGF has been overcome by
> events - in which case, having a permanent, but useless structure becomes
> >> an artifact where zero real work gets done.
> >>
> >> /bill
> >> PO Box 12317
> >> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> >> 310.322.8102
> >>
> >> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 9:24, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of
> improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will
> always be in need of evolution.
> >>>
> >>> jeanette
> >>>
> >>> Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill:
> >>>> permanent implies that no further evolution/change is
> needed/required/desired.
> >>>> Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> /bill
> >>>> PO Box 12317
> >>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> >>>> 310.322.8102
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed
> (UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt"
> attachment(s) for more information.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft
> statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on various
> aspects of the document and made the required revisions.  Please send your
> comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and formal approval process
> tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on the pad at
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
> >>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
> >>>>> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each
> of these lists)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments
> received so far:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that
> projects in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the
> Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could
> imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement
> but that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get
> advise from the diplomats @ IGF.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the
> UN General Assembly.
> >>>>>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement
> from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if
> we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce outcomes)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other
> aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night,
> IGF local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for
> it.
> >>>>>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We
> are inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> jeanette
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
> >>>>>>> (removed cross posting)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping
> the text
> >>>>>>> relatively brief
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
> >>>>>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires
> the
> >>>>>>> ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some text to
> that end.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of
> the
> >>>>>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being
> collected
> >>>>>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9
> years.
> >>>>>>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some
> examples can
> >>>>>>> be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware of the progress
> being
> >>>>>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> avri
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> >>>>>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little
> bit. I support it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wolfgang
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>>>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von
> Jeanette Hofmann
> >>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
> >>>>>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN
> >>>>>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a
> permanent basis.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to
> the IGF
> >>>>>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and
> >>>>>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> discuss mailing list
> >>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
> >>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection
> Service
> >>>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat"
> >>>>> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus.
> >>>>> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep 2 08:04:46 2014:
> >>>>> MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against
> Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902
> (message s82F4YpS009135).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it,
> >>>>> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance. If this
> >>>>> is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the message.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IPC Computing Services
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> discuss mailing list
> >>>>> discuss at 1net.org
> >>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> discuss mailing list
> >> discuss at 1net.org
> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nick Ashton-Hart
> > Executive Director, Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance (IDEA)
> > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
> > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
> > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
> > USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
> > email: nashton at internet-ecosystem.org
> > Jabber/GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
> > PGP Fingerprint: BFD5  DF7 7 2E D5 8 636  92E7  735 7 07 03 7 727  9B0A
> 522 6
> > Skype: nashtonhart
> > www.internet-ecosystem.org
> >
> > One-click digital business card for your address book:
> http://evaunt.me/vEbDF/NickAshton-Hart
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/514b005b/attachment.htm>

From anne at webfoundation.org  Tue Sep  2 12:56:01 2014
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:56:01 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <5405D9B8.5050205@itforchange.net>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com>
 <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca>
 <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br>
 <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> <CAFwCmbGJuswDXhvXTc5GB7kBtAHS2V-KWpzBg5jw7NdimpMnig@mail.gmail.com>
 <5405D9B8.5050205@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbHohqD2hEUTvQ+13OrNwA1g4jJdGHeT6CffiMR1Otigwg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:52 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> it is about institutionalising something that is supposed to crystallise
> the spirit (variously interpreted) of Net Mundial, as a/ the key global IG
> process.


Parminder, I'm not sure this is right ... it's very hard to read the tea
leaves, but after listening to everything that was said in Geneva, I
honestly don't think that WEF has much appetite to become or convene a
norm-setting institution on IG with all of the (time-consuming, tiresome -
from WEF's perspective) negotiation, consensus-building that evidently
entails. I think the aim is to parachute quickly in with "action
partnerships" that they hope will *indirectly* build developing country
support for the multi-stakeholder approach.

But in any case, I think I'm in agreement with you that the WEF initiative
should not be allowed to appropriate any special status or aspirations in
the IG realm - least of all by civil society.

Best
Anne




-- 
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://www.webfoundation.org/> |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/e6b3ef62/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:03:00 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:03:00 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss]  Re: Draft statement on making IGF
 permanent
In-Reply-To: <B7FBD1F6-D1DC-48F6-8744-C5F4DB8E4BE3@gmail.com>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu> <33C5BC0A-71EE-4BEB-9393-9865DFD98319@isi.edu> <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org> <B7FBD1F6-D1DC-48F6-8744-C5F4DB8E4BE3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0cde01cfc6cf$c1c02a00$45407e00$@gmail.com>

A minor correction...

George, neither the UN ICT Task Force, nor the GAID " spent millions of
dollars"... neither of them had any money of their own (nor any sort of
significant contributory budget--Sarbuland to the best of my knowledge
continued to receive his salary through his previous appointment elsewhere
in the Secretariat for example)... Lack of independent funding was one among
a huge number of other problems, and not to say that if they had had any
money it would have been well and usefully spent...  but I completely agree
with you on the other part of your statement "by virtue of their existence,
they have pre-empted the center of discussion and have thereby prevented the
possible emergence of more innovative and useful."  

I think these comments should be balanced however, by noting that the (quite
limited) contribution of the UNDP, UNESCO and other of the specialized
agencies to ICT4D were for the most quite useful, reasonably well managed
and not particularly wasteful of their or anyone's money.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 8:54 AM
To: Nick Ashton-Hart
Cc: manning bill; 1Net List; Erika Mann; Best Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Re: Draft statement on making IGF
permanent

[cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]

I agree with Nick.  In fact, this is a strong reason not to ask for
permanence for the IGF, but rather to resort to Christian De Larrinaga's
earlier suggestion.  Once something is permanent in the UN System, it will
remain there as the individuals employed by it begin to assert increasingly
strong vested interests in its continuation.  To repeat Christian's
comments:

> I will only add to my last comment that I don't understand the diplomatic
or institutional implications of calling for "permanent" mandate rather than
a "continuing or open-ended mandate".     
> 
> I expect the point behind this proposal is not to enshrine IGF as a
forever fixture on the world but to prolong and enhance the IGF at the UN.
That seems laudable. 
> 
> From a purely semantic perspective I prefer the term "continuing" or "open
ended" to "permanent".  The formation of the IGF Support Association it is
timely to ask the UN to continue its mandate now. So I thank those who have
taken the initiative to write this. 

Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of
computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the
committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID
from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to
assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars,
and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the
center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of
more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the
IGF within the UN to produce any better results.

George  




On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
<nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:

> Standing bodies - and even institutions - in the UN system rarely ever get
abolished, even when they are clearly overtaken by events. 
> 
> Just for information.
> 
> On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:30, manning bill <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> it is rare to find a human structure that is “permanent”, so perhaps, in
this case, the term is more a term of art, to deal with the UN.
>> I can see a possible future in which the IGF has been overcome by 
>> events - in which case, having a permanent, but useless structure becomes
an artifact where zero real work gets done.
>> 
>> /bill
>> PO Box 12317
>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>> 310.322.8102
>> 
>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 9:24, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
wrote:
>> 
>>> One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of
improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will
always be in need of evolution.
>>> 
>>> jeanette
>>> 
>>> Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill:
>>>> permanent implies that no further evolution/change is
needed/required/desired.
>>>> Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> /bill
>>>> PO Box 12317
>>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>>>> 310.322.8102
>>>> 
>>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed
(UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt"
attachment(s) for more information.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft 
>>>>> statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on 
>>>>> various aspects of the document and made the required revisions.  
>>>>> Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and 
>>>>> formal approval process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on 
>>>>> the pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
>>>>> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on 
>>>>>> each of these lists)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments
received so far:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects
in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the Generaly
Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could imply a
change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but
that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get advise
from the diplomats @ IGF.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN
General Assembly.
>>>>>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement 
>>>>>> from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce 
>>>>>> outcomes even if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want 
>>>>>> the IGF to produce outcomes)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other 
>>>>>> aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of 
>>>>>> the IGF
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF
local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for it.
>>>>>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are
inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>>>>>> (removed cross posting)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping 
>>>>>>> the text relatively brief
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the 
>>>>>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this 
>>>>>>> requires the ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some
text to that end.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of 
>>>>>>> the IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being 
>>>>>>> collected on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the
first 9 years.
>>>>>>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some 
>>>>>>> examples can be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware 
>>>>>>> of the progress being made on that report and whether it is
available at this point.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit.
I support it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von 
>>>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>>>>>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the 
>>>>>>>> UN Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a
permanent basis.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to 
>>>>>>>> the IGF and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders 
>>>>>>>> and perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection 
>>>>> Service
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ---- The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat"
>>>>> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus.
>>>>> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep 2 08:04:46 2014:
>>>>> MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against 
>>>>> Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902
(message s82F4YpS009135).
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it, 
>>>>> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance. If 
>>>>> this is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the
message.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> 
>>>>> IPC Computing Services
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> 
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> Executive Director, Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance (IDEA)
> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
> email: nashton at internet-ecosystem.org
> Jabber/GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
> PGP Fingerprint: BFD5  DF7 7 2E D5 8 636  92E7  735 7 07 03 7 727  
> 9B0A  522 6
> Skype: nashtonhart
> www.internet-ecosystem.org
> 
> One-click digital business card for your address book: 
> http://evaunt.me/vEbDF/NickAshton-Hart
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 16:11:21 2014
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:11:21 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss]  Re: Draft statement on making IGF
 permanent
In-Reply-To: <0cde01cfc6cf$c1c02a00$45407e00$@gmail.com>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu> <33C5BC0A-71EE-4BEB-9393-9865DFD98319@isi.edu> <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org> <B7FBD1F6-D1DC-48F6-8744-C5F4DB8E4BE3@gmail.com> <0cde01cfc6cf$c1c02a00$45407e00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D48A66E6-2BAA-4CD7-903B-C91770BE9F39@gmail.com>

Below are responses to both Mawaki and Michael Gurstein:

Mawaki,

Yes, the structure and participatory model are different, and that would make some difference.  My concern is that if IGF is to be captured by the UN, changes would likely change place over time that would be at the sole discretion of the UN.  

So to be direct in responding, I think that the evolution toward a "permanent" body within the UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would likely mean the weakening of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up nature of the IGF processes.  I point to the ITU as an example; its mandate is governed by its 190+ countries that have ITU membership, and their decision are the ones that determined the work plan of the organization.  The same is true for the UN Secretariat, and nothing in any agreement between the UN and the IGF will alter that.

Mawaki, I think both the UN and the IGF are important and positive institutions in their own way.  My argument is with the IGF going solidly and/or permanently under the UN umbrella, nothing more.  See my response to Michael below for more.

On a personal note, I'm quite glad to see you intervening on these various lists, and I think that your posts are generally really thoughtful and excellent.  I never delete or file them before taking the time to read them completely.

George 

On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi George,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:54 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> [cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]
> 
> <snippet>
> 
> Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars, and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the IGF within the UN to produce any better results.
> 
> Just to make sure I understand you well, isn't the structure and the participatory model of IGF different enough from those two examples you just cited so as to expect different results regardless of the level of institutionalization with the UN? Otherwise stated, are you assuming with your above assertion that an evolution toward a "permanent" body within the UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would necessarily mean the disappearance of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up nature of the IGF processes?
> 
> Again and to state it more explicitly, by asking this, I'm not necessarily advocating the creation of a new UN body for IGF.
> Thanks,
> 
> Mawaki   


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michael,

Well, millions may have been an exaggeration, but maybe not.  I think that both Sergei and Sarbuland were either at the D-1 or D-2 level, and that, with New York post adjustment and other additions comes to about $200-$250K per year.  Multiply by eight years, and add in travel costs.  The money that went to them had an opportunity cost and, as we have discussed, that cost is measured in terms of their blocking the center and thereby discouraging new initiatives.  Now you may be correct in that the money did not come from the UN regular budget, but it came from some budget, and could have been used differently. 

I take your latter point fully.  The UN system contributed significantly to developing countries in terms of transferring ICT equipment, skills, experience, and knowledge.  In general, this was done through the specialized agencies and the UN Secretariat, although UNDP had its Office of Project Execution (OPE) for a long time and UNFPA had its own large program.  And the budgets in the 1970s and into the 1980s were robust; governments had bought into the multilateral aid program.  I was fully involved in this technology transfer for 13 years as a UN Secretariat international civil servant; I worked in 35 countries directly and executed useful projects with my group in probably 40 others.  

That ICT4D program continues to this day, but in a much abbreviated form, unfortunately, due to changes in funding patterns by donor countries.  Looking back, and even at the time, those programs were generally well managed and the results support your point below; the donors got good value for their money.

My remarks should not be construed as anti-UN.  The UN is a good institution that is dealing with difficult issues.  However, I'm very conscious of the UN's ability to set up self perpetuating bureaucracies and then to use them to their advantage.  You do remember when we cynically called GAID Sarbuland Khan's retirement program, and I think that we were right.  I don't want the IGF to be anyone's retirement program.

Going back to the reason for this discussion, I hope that the end state of what is going on now is an extended IGF with more robust financial support from all sectors including the UN.  But as others have pointed out, a multiplicity of donors helps to avoid capture by any one sector.

There would be advantages in maintaining some kind of UN link, but taking the IGF out from the umbrella of UN patronage.  In particular, it would provide more freedom in deciding in which countries the IGF would be held. It would do away with the sham security system now being employed during the meetings, and it could provide more freedom to use funds in ways more effectively.  One would have to balance this against the loss of convening power and diplomatic caché that the UN provides now.

I hope that this provides the balance that concerned you.

Speaking of balance, I saw your statement regarding the distribution of community informatics folks across developed ad developing countries, and the implication for the adequacy of representation from the "civil society" sector  It is pretty clear to me that the development side of "the rest of us" is poorly represented at the expense of professional civil society organizations, but I don't know how to right it.  That's a larger problem.

Regards,

George     

On Sep 2, 2014, at 1:03 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> A minor correction...
> 
> George, neither the UN ICT Task Force, nor the GAID " spent millions of
> dollars"... neither of them had any money of their own (nor any sort of
> significant contributory budget--Sarbuland to the best of my knowledge
> continued to receive his salary through his previous appointment elsewhere
> in the Secretariat for example)... Lack of independent funding was one among
> a huge number of other problems, and not to say that if they had had any
> money it would have been well and usefully spent...  but I completely agree
> with you on the other part of your statement "by virtue of their existence,
> they have pre-empted the center of discussion and have thereby prevented the
> possible emergence of more innovative and useful."  
> 
> I think these comments should be balanced however, by noting that the (quite
> limited) contribution of the UNDP, UNESCO and other of the specialized
> agencies to ICT4D were for the most quite useful, reasonably well managed
> and not particularly wasteful of their or anyone's money.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 8:54 AM
> To: Nick Ashton-Hart
> Cc: manning bill; 1Net List; Erika Mann; Best Bits
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Re: Draft statement on making IGF
> permanent
> 
> [cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]
> 
> I agree with Nick.  In fact, this is a strong reason not to ask for
> permanence for the IGF, but rather to resort to Christian De Larrinaga's
> earlier suggestion.  Once something is permanent in the UN System, it will
> remain there as the individuals employed by it begin to assert increasingly
> strong vested interests in its continuation.  To repeat Christian's
> comments:
> 
>> I will only add to my last comment that I don't understand the diplomatic
> or institutional implications of calling for "permanent" mandate rather than
> a "continuing or open-ended mandate".     
>> 
>> I expect the point behind this proposal is not to enshrine IGF as a
> forever fixture on the world but to prolong and enhance the IGF at the UN.
> That seems laudable. 
>> 
>> From a purely semantic perspective I prefer the term "continuing" or "open
> ended" to "permanent".  The formation of the IGF Support Association it is
> timely to ask the UN to continue its mandate now. So I thank those who have
> taken the initiative to write this. 
> 
> Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of
> computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the
> committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID
> from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to
> assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars,
> and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the
> center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of
> more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the
> IGF within the UN to produce any better results.
> 
> George  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
> <nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
> 
>> Standing bodies - and even institutions - in the UN system rarely ever get
> abolished, even when they are clearly overtaken by events. 
>> 
>> Just for information.
>> 
>> On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:30, manning bill <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> it is rare to find a human structure that is “permanent”, so perhaps, in
> this case, the term is more a term of art, to deal with the UN.
>>> I can see a possible future in which the IGF has been overcome by 
>>> events - in which case, having a permanent, but useless structure becomes
> an artifact where zero real work gets done.
>>> 
>>> /bill
>>> PO Box 12317
>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>>> 310.322.8102
>>> 
>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 9:24, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of
> improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will
> always be in need of evolution.
>>>> 
>>>> jeanette
>>>> 
>>>> Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill:
>>>>> permanent implies that no further evolution/change is
> needed/required/desired.
>>>>> Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> /bill
>>>>> PO Box 12317
>>>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>>>>> 310.322.8102
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed
> (UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt"
> attachment(s) for more information.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft 
>>>>>> statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on 
>>>>>> various aspects of the document and made the required revisions.  
>>>>>> Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and 
>>>>>> formal approval process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on 
>>>>>> the pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
>>>>>> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on 
>>>>>>> each of these lists)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments
> received so far:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects
> in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the Generaly
> Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could imply a
> change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but
> that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get advise
> from the diplomats @ IGF.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN
> General Assembly.
>>>>>>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement 
>>>>>>> from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce 
>>>>>>> outcomes even if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want 
>>>>>>> the IGF to produce outcomes)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other 
>>>>>>> aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of 
>>>>>>> the IGF
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF
> local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for it.
>>>>>>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are
> inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>>>>>>> (removed cross posting)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping 
>>>>>>>> the text relatively brief
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the 
>>>>>>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this 
>>>>>>>> requires the ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some
> text to that end.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of 
>>>>>>>> the IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being 
>>>>>>>> collected on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the
> first 9 years.
>>>>>>>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some 
>>>>>>>> examples can be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware 
>>>>>>>> of the progress being made on that report and whether it is
> available at this point.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit.
> I support it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>>>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von 
>>>>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>>>>>>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the 
>>>>>>>>> UN Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a
> permanent basis.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to 
>>>>>>>>> the IGF and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders 
>>>>>>>>> and perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection 
>>>>>> Service
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> ---- The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat"
>>>>>> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus.
>>>>>> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep 2 08:04:46 2014:
>>>>>> MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against 
>>>>>> Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902
> (message s82F4YpS009135).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it, 
>>>>>> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance. If 
>>>>>> this is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the
> message.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IPC Computing Services
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Executive Director, Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance (IDEA)
>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
>> email: nashton at internet-ecosystem.org
>> Jabber/GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
>> PGP Fingerprint: BFD5  DF7 7 2E D5 8 636  92E7  735 7 07 03 7 727  
>> 9B0A  522 6
>> Skype: nashtonhart
>> www.internet-ecosystem.org
>> 
>> One-click digital business card for your address book: 
>> http://evaunt.me/vEbDF/NickAshton-Hart
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 


From brett at accessnow.org  Mon Sep  1 03:41:37 2014
From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:41:37 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA_1xLV7K-_sqQxjsCRYL59UorkFqDtqPQrKd4xSbNUVFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
	<CA+4KnA_1xLV7K-_sqQxjsCRYL59UorkFqDtqPQrKd4xSbNUVFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5eo1+pWt=WG01g9NO8qkm7Z-3g_WdSJ-D3K2QxW0h4U84KQg@mail.gmail.com>

Agreed. If there are additional /different things that we want to say as
CS, we could also draft our own letter if needed. But my understanding is
that we had agreed to keep it pretty simple, so sounds good and more
effective. Brett

Brett Solomon
Executive Director
Access | accessnow.org

+1 917 969 6077
@solomonbrett
Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB
Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB




On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Public Knowledge supports.
> On Sep 1, 2014 10:29 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
>> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
>> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>
>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
>> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
>> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
>> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
>> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
>> statement.)
>>
>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>> support in civil society.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/9fc36b2d/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Sep  2 17:45:35 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:45:35 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1r6aDndCHmpqHwsBov0MycQBmUgxEqt+=ZgHVwZESNjky1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org> <CAOi1r6aDndCHmpqHwsBov0MycQBmUgxEqt+=ZgHVwZESNjky1g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54063A7F.8000103@wzb.eu>



Stephanie did circulate our second version today. You should have got it.

Meanwhile, there is a chance that some governments will also endorse it. 
We are working on this right now.

The statement, sort of born at the BB meeting, could become an informal 
or formal outcome of the IGF.

jeanette

Am 02.09.14 16:55, schrieb Andrew Puddephatt:
> can both statements - short and long be posted for approval?
>
>> *Andrew Puddephatt*
>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
>
>
>
> On 2 September 2014 13:35, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
>     wrote:
>
>      > Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits
>     meeting
>      > earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
>      > Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement
>     which is
>      > in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>      > The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version
>     starting
>      > at line 325.
>      > Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits
>     can be
>      > made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of Thursday
>      > Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>
>     So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>
>     1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
>     https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
>     *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>
>     2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325
>     which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension
>     and other issues.[1]
>
>     3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
>     establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum
>     within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and
>     strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus*
>     outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>
>     MY QUESTION:
>
>     It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
>     individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens
>     with 1 and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our
>     meeting page at http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what
>     would be an appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show
>     support for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the
>     consensus that we reached on 3)?
>
>
>     [0] Current full text below:
>
>     In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the
>     Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for
>     multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>     Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>
>     The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues
>     relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those
>     enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the
>     sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of
>     the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was
>     not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or
>     organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
>     non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
>     day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>
>     The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
>     desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal
>     consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its
>     creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
>     regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to
>     extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the
>     IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global
>     Internet governance”.
>
>     In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum,
>     the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and
>     valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the
>     private sector and international organizations discuss important
>     questions of economic and social development. They share their
>     insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the
>     Internet’s great potential.
>
>     The Secretary-General recommended that
>     (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended
>     for a further five years;
>     (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by Member
>     States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of
>     the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>
>     Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
>     preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for
>     development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of
>     2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>
>     The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated
>     in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014,
>     that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>     (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made
>     by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial
>     Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as
>     a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues
>     with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways
>     to address them.”
>
>     In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of
>     IGF.  We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven
>     its worth. (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on
>     the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with
>     the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate and reliable
>     financial support. These two goals are interrelated.  To address the
>     need for sustainable funding, the Internet Governance Forum Support
>     Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014.  The
>     goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote sustainable
>     funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing
>     funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
>     are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet
>     community needs in order to continues its work for the global
>     Internet development goals.
>
>     Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the
>     continuing development of Internet governance and based on success
>     of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN
>     Secretary General to  establish the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent)
>     forum.  We believe that the IGF should move beyond its initiation
>     phase where repeated renewal by the UN General assembly is required
>     and that it be allowed to do long range planning for its continuing
>     and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary General
>     work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure
>     and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder foundation.
>
>
>     [1] Current full text below:
>
>     We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
>     re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying
>     concerns  for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
>     this 2014 IGF  in Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and
>     then the specific  demands below)
>
>     1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom
>     of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in
>     relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore
>     Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum
>     and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to
>     human rights.
>
>     2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>     multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should
>     be reformed and strengthened.
>
>     3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF
>     post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to
>     look at  potential changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
>
>     4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
>     express concerns about the number of new processes which civil
>     society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call
>     for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.
>
>     5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by,
>     for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA
>     and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to
>     use regional and national IGFs as part of this process.
>
>     6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
>     ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken
>     into account.
>
>     --
>     Jeremy Malcolm
>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>     https://eff.org
>     jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>
>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>
>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Sep  2 17:50:36 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:50:36 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss]  Re: Draft statement on making IGF
 permanent
In-Reply-To: <B7FBD1F6-D1DC-48F6-8744-C5F4DB8E4BE3@gmail.com>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu> <33C5BC0A-71EE-4BEB-9393-9865DFD98319@isi.edu> <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org> <B7FBD1F6-D1DC-48F6-8744-C5F4DB8E4BE3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54063BAC.6000405@wzb.eu>

Please have a look at the second version posted by Stephanie a few hours 
ago. It intends to take the concerns specified below into account.

Most likely, there will be a third and final version tomorrow night.

Jeanette



Am 02.09.14 17:54, schrieb George Sadowsky:
> [cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]
>
> I agree with Nick.  In fact, this is a strong reason not to ask for permanence for the IGF, but rather to resort to Christian De Larrinaga's earlier suggestion.  Once something is permanent in the UN System, it will remain there as the individuals employed by it begin to assert increasingly strong vested interests in its continuation.  To repeat Christian's comments:
>
>> I will only add to my last comment that I don't understand the diplomatic or institutional implications of calling for "permanent" mandate rather than a "continuing or open-ended mandate".
>>
>> I expect the point behind this proposal is not to enshrine IGF as a forever fixture on the world but to prolong and enhance the IGF at the UN. That seems laudable.
>>
>>  From a purely semantic perspective I prefer the term "continuing" or "open ended" to "permanent".  The formation of the IGF Support Association it is timely to ask the UN to continue its mandate now. So I thank those who have taken the initiative to write this.
>
> Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars, and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the IGF within the UN to produce any better results.
>
> George
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
>
>> Standing bodies - and even institutions - in the UN system rarely ever get abolished, even when they are clearly overtaken by events.
>>
>> Just for information.
>>
>> On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:30, manning bill <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> it is rare to find a human structure that is “permanent”, so perhaps, in this case, the term is more a term of art, to deal with the UN.
>>> I can see a possible future in which the IGF has been overcome by events - in which case, having a permanent, but useless structure becomes
>>> an artifact where zero real work gets done.
>>>
>>> /bill
>>> PO Box 12317
>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>>> 310.322.8102
>>>
>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 9:24, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will always be in need of evolution.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill:
>>>>> permanent implies that no further evolution/change is needed/required/desired.
>>>>> Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /bill
>>>>> PO Box 12317
>>>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>>>>> 310.322.8102
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed (UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on various aspects of the document and made the required revisions.  Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and formal approval process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on the pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
>>>>>> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each of these lists)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments received so far:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get advise from the diplomats @ IGF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN General Assembly.
>>>>>>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce outcomes)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for it.
>>>>>>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>>>>>>> (removed cross posting)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the text
>>>>>>>> relatively brief
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
>>>>>>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the
>>>>>>>> ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some text to that end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the
>>>>>>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected
>>>>>>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years.
>>>>>>>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some examples can
>>>>>>>> be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware of the progress being
>>>>>>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit. I support it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>>>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>>>>>>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN
>>>>>>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a permanent basis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the IGF
>>>>>>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and
>>>>>>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat"
>>>>>> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus.
>>>>>> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep 2 08:04:46 2014:
>>>>>> MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902 (message s82F4YpS009135).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it,
>>>>>> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance. If this
>>>>>> is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IPC Computing Services
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Executive Director, Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance (IDEA)
>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
>> email: nashton at internet-ecosystem.org
>> Jabber/GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
>> PGP Fingerprint: BFD5  DF7 7 2E D5 8 636  92E7  735 7 07 03 7 727  9B0A  522 6
>> Skype: nashtonhart
>> www.internet-ecosystem.org
>>
>> One-click digital business card for your address book: http://evaunt.me/vEbDF/NickAshton-Hart
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Tue Sep  2 17:11:01 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:11:01 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss]  Re: Draft statement on making IGF
 permanent
In-Reply-To: <D48A66E6-2BAA-4CD7-903B-C91770BE9F39@gmail.com>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu> <33C5BC0A-71EE-4BEB-9393-9865DFD98319@isi.edu> <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org> <B7FBD1F6-D1DC-48F6-8744-C5F4DB8E4BE3@gmail.com> <0cde01cfc6cf$c1c02a00$45407e00$@gmail.com> <D48A66E6-2BAA-4CD7-903B-C91770BE9F39@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A4B50F4C-787D-46E4-A504-5A1E66C1DF09@theglobaljournal.net>

George,

You are really confusing people. Time ago, WK wrote that multistakeholderism was invented by Kofi Annan, the former UN SG, back in 2003 (and not the corporations). Now you are telling us that UN is a threat to MSism. Isn't it the UN that created the IGF (with no money indeed)? Still IGF is very specific "thing", and still you are making a poor parallel with the ITU which in terms of structure has absolutely nothing to do with the IGF. What is this all about? Now, as BB is trying to create a consensus regarding the future of IGF, you are advocating for the IGF not to be permanent because the UN would be a threat to it,  if it were to become permanent.

Yesterday you stated
-" I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative mode rather than an environment of suspicion."
-"... I think that this thread has achieved all the usefulness that it will have, and I will be reluctant to carry it further."
and now
"On a personal note, I'm quite glad to see you intervening on these various lists, and I think that your posts are generally really thoughtful and excellent.  I never delete or file them before taking the time to read them completely."

Did you wish to give Mawaki a good mark in front of everyone? How bizarre! As a personal comment shouldn't it be made privately?

What is this way of behaving within a grown up community and supposedly democratic forum? Do we need someone to invent suspicion when there are only basic factual concerns? Do we need someone to tell us when a discussion is over? Do we all need to know when you think whether Mr X or Mr Y deserves a public compliment?

This is all very embarrassing and I am wondering... Who are you working for and what's your objective? 

JC

Le 2 sept. 2014 à 22:11, George Sadowsky a écrit :

> Below are responses to both Mawaki and Michael Gurstein:
> 
> Mawaki,
> 
> Yes, the structure and participatory model are different, and that would make some difference.  My concern is that if IGF is to be captured by the UN, changes would likely change place over time that would be at the sole discretion of the UN.  
> 
> So to be direct in responding, I think that the evolution toward a "permanent" body within the UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would likely mean the weakening of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up nature of the IGF processes.  I point to the ITU as an example; its mandate is governed by its 190+ countries that have ITU membership, and their decision are the ones that determined the work plan of the organization.  The same is true for the UN Secretariat, and nothing in any agreement between the UN and the IGF will alter that.
> 
> Mawaki, I think both the UN and the IGF are important and positive institutions in their own way.  My argument is with the IGF going solidly and/or permanently under the UN umbrella, nothing more.  See my response to Michael below for more.
> 
> On a personal note, I'm quite glad to see you intervening on these various lists, and I think that your posts are generally really thoughtful and excellent.  I never delete or file them before taking the time to read them completely.
> 
> George 
> 
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi George,
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:54 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]
>> 
>> <snippet>
>> 
>> Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars, and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the IGF within the UN to produce any better results.
>> 
>> Just to make sure I understand you well, isn't the structure and the participatory model of IGF different enough from those two examples you just cited so as to expect different results regardless of the level of institutionalization with the UN? Otherwise stated, are you assuming with your above assertion that an evolution toward a "permanent" body within the UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would necessarily mean the disappearance of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up nature of the IGF processes?
>> 
>> Again and to state it more explicitly, by asking this, I'm not necessarily advocating the creation of a new UN body for IGF.
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Mawaki   
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Michael,
> 
> Well, millions may have been an exaggeration, but maybe not.  I think that both Sergei and Sarbuland were either at the D-1 or D-2 level, and that, with New York post adjustment and other additions comes to about $200-$250K per year.  Multiply by eight years, and add in travel costs.  The money that went to them had an opportunity cost and, as we have discussed, that cost is measured in terms of their blocking the center and thereby discouraging new initiatives.  Now you may be correct in that the money did not come from the UN regular budget, but it came from some budget, and could have been used differently. 
> 
> I take your latter point fully.  The UN system contributed significantly to developing countries in terms of transferring ICT equipment, skills, experience, and knowledge.  In general, this was done through the specialized agencies and the UN Secretariat, although UNDP had its Office of Project Execution (OPE) for a long time and UNFPA had its own large program.  And the budgets in the 1970s and into the 1980s were robust; governments had bought into the multilateral aid program.  I was fully involved in this technology transfer for 13 years as a UN Secretariat international civil servant; I worked in 35 countries directly and executed useful projects with my group in probably 40 others.  
> 
> That ICT4D program continues to this day, but in a much abbreviated form, unfortunately, due to changes in funding patterns by donor countries.  Looking back, and even at the time, those programs were generally well managed and the results support your point below; the donors got good value for their money.
> 
> My remarks should not be construed as anti-UN.  The UN is a good institution that is dealing with difficult issues.  However, I'm very conscious of the UN's ability to set up self perpetuating bureaucracies and then to use them to their advantage.  You do remember when we cynically called GAID Sarbuland Khan's retirement program, and I think that we were right.  I don't want the IGF to be anyone's retirement program.
> 
> Going back to the reason for this discussion, I hope that the end state of what is going on now is an extended IGF with more robust financial support from all sectors including the UN.  But as others have pointed out, a multiplicity of donors helps to avoid capture by any one sector.
> 
> There would be advantages in maintaining some kind of UN link, but taking the IGF out from the umbrella of UN patronage.  In particular, it would provide more freedom in deciding in which countries the IGF would be held. It would do away with the sham security system now being employed during the meetings, and it could provide more freedom to use funds in ways more effectively.  One would have to balance this against the loss of convening power and diplomatic caché that the UN provides now.
> 
> I hope that this provides the balance that concerned you.
> 
> Speaking of balance, I saw your statement regarding the distribution of community informatics folks across developed ad developing countries, and the implication for the adequacy of representation from the "civil society" sector  It is pretty clear to me that the development side of "the rest of us" is poorly represented at the expense of professional civil society organizations, but I don't know how to right it.  That's a larger problem.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> George     
> 
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 1:03 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> A minor correction...
>> 
>> George, neither the UN ICT Task Force, nor the GAID " spent millions of
>> dollars"... neither of them had any money of their own (nor any sort of
>> significant contributory budget--Sarbuland to the best of my knowledge
>> continued to receive his salary through his previous appointment elsewhere
>> in the Secretariat for example)... Lack of independent funding was one among
>> a huge number of other problems, and not to say that if they had had any
>> money it would have been well and usefully spent...  but I completely agree
>> with you on the other part of your statement "by virtue of their existence,
>> they have pre-empted the center of discussion and have thereby prevented the
>> possible emergence of more innovative and useful."  
>> 
>> I think these comments should be balanced however, by noting that the (quite
>> limited) contribution of the UNDP, UNESCO and other of the specialized
>> agencies to ICT4D were for the most quite useful, reasonably well managed
>> and not particularly wasteful of their or anyone's money.
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 8:54 AM
>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Cc: manning bill; 1Net List; Erika Mann; Best Bits
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Re: Draft statement on making IGF
>> permanent
>> 
>> [cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]
>> 
>> I agree with Nick.  In fact, this is a strong reason not to ask for
>> permanence for the IGF, but rather to resort to Christian De Larrinaga's
>> earlier suggestion.  Once something is permanent in the UN System, it will
>> remain there as the individuals employed by it begin to assert increasingly
>> strong vested interests in its continuation.  To repeat Christian's
>> comments:
>> 
>>> I will only add to my last comment that I don't understand the diplomatic
>> or institutional implications of calling for "permanent" mandate rather than
>> a "continuing or open-ended mandate".     
>>> 
>>> I expect the point behind this proposal is not to enshrine IGF as a
>> forever fixture on the world but to prolong and enhance the IGF at the UN.
>> That seems laudable. 
>>> 
>>> From a purely semantic perspective I prefer the term "continuing" or "open
>> ended" to "permanent".  The formation of the IGF Support Association it is
>> timely to ask the UN to continue its mandate now. So I thank those who have
>> taken the initiative to write this. 
>> 
>> Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of
>> computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the
>> committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID
>> from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to
>> assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars,
>> and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the
>> center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of
>> more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the
>> IGF within the UN to produce any better results.
>> 
>> George  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>> <nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Standing bodies - and even institutions - in the UN system rarely ever get
>> abolished, even when they are clearly overtaken by events. 
>>> 
>>> Just for information.
>>> 
>>> On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:30, manning bill <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> it is rare to find a human structure that is “permanent”, so perhaps, in
>> this case, the term is more a term of art, to deal with the UN.
>>>> I can see a possible future in which the IGF has been overcome by 
>>>> events - in which case, having a permanent, but useless structure becomes
>> an artifact where zero real work gets done.
>>>> 
>>>> /bill
>>>> PO Box 12317
>>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>>>> 310.322.8102
>>>> 
>>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 9:24, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of
>> improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will
>> always be in need of evolution.
>>>>> 
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill:
>>>>>> permanent implies that no further evolution/change is
>> needed/required/desired.
>>>>>> Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> /bill
>>>>>> PO Box 12317
>>>>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>>>>>> 310.322.8102
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed
>> (UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt"
>> attachment(s) for more information.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft 
>>>>>>> statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on 
>>>>>>> various aspects of the document and made the required revisions.  
>>>>>>> Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and 
>>>>>>> formal approval process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on 
>>>>>>> the pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
>>>>>>> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on 
>>>>>>>> each of these lists)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments
>> received so far:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects
>> in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the Generaly
>> Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could imply a
>> change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but
>> that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get advise
>> from the diplomats @ IGF.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN
>> General Assembly.
>>>>>>>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement 
>>>>>>>> from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce 
>>>>>>>> outcomes even if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want 
>>>>>>>> the IGF to produce outcomes)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other 
>>>>>>>> aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of 
>>>>>>>> the IGF
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF
>> local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for it.
>>>>>>>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are
>> inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>>>>>>>> (removed cross posting)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping 
>>>>>>>>> the text relatively brief
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the 
>>>>>>>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this 
>>>>>>>>> requires the ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some
>> text to that end.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of 
>>>>>>>>> the IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being 
>>>>>>>>> collected on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the
>> first 9 years.
>>>>>>>>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some 
>>>>>>>>> examples can be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware 
>>>>>>>>> of the progress being made on that report and whether it is
>> available at this point.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit.
>> I support it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>>>>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von 
>>>>>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>>>>>>>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the 
>>>>>>>>>> UN Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a
>> permanent basis.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to 
>>>>>>>>>> the IGF and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders 
>>>>>>>>>> and perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection 
>>>>>>> Service
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> ---- The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat"
>>>>>>> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus.
>>>>>>> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep 2 08:04:46 2014:
>>>>>>> MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against 
>>>>>>> Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902
>> (message s82F4YpS009135).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it, 
>>>>>>> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance. If 
>>>>>>> this is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the
>> message.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> IPC Computing Services
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Nick Ashton-Hart
>>> Executive Director, Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance (IDEA)
>>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
>>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
>>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
>>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
>>> email: nashton at internet-ecosystem.org
>>> Jabber/GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
>>> PGP Fingerprint: BFD5  DF7 7 2E D5 8 636  92E7  735 7 07 03 7 727  
>>> 9B0A  522 6
>>> Skype: nashtonhart
>>> www.internet-ecosystem.org
>>> 
>>> One-click digital business card for your address book: 
>>> http://evaunt.me/vEbDF/NickAshton-Hart
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/db322223/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 18:04:08 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:04:08 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Re: Draft statement on making IGF
 permanent
In-Reply-To: <D48A66E6-2BAA-4CD7-903B-C91770BE9F39@gmail.com>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <10D4351F-54DB-41C9-BB23-01774A789C19@isi.edu> <5405EF52.1040605@wzb.eu>
 <33C5BC0A-71EE-4BEB-9393-9865DFD98319@isi.edu> <855C4B0B-EEB9-4BA5-AB49-1DC24F714F32@internet-ecosystem.org>
 <B7FBD1F6-D1DC-48F6-8744-C5F4DB8E4BE3@gmail.com> <0cde01cfc6cf$c1c02a00$45407e00$@gmail.com>
 <D48A66E6-2BAA-4CD7-903B-C91770BE9F39@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v92rZzd1FT30CL9YPQC3gWSrSOvbfefgz7CghFpsHhvtA@mail.gmail.com>

George,

 Thank you for clarification.

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:11 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Below are responses to both Mawaki and Michael Gurstein:
>
> Mawaki,
>
> Yes, the structure and participatory model are different, and that would
> make some difference.  My concern is that if IGF is to be captured by the
> UN, changes would likely change place over time that would be at the sole
> discretion of the UN.
>
> So to be direct in responding, I think that the evolution toward a
> "permanent" body within the UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would
> likely mean the weakening of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up
> nature of the IGF processes.  I point to the ITU as an example; its mandate
> is governed by its 190+ countries that have ITU membership, and their
> decision are the ones that determined the work plan of the organization.
> The same is true for the UN Secretariat, and nothing in any agreement
> between the UN and the IGF will alter that.
>
> Mawaki, I think both the UN and the IGF are important and positive
> institutions in their own way.  My argument is with the IGF going solidly
> and/or permanently under the UN umbrella, nothing more.


I do understand your point and take it for exactly what it is. On the other
hand I am skeptical about thinking that there is any way possible IGF would
still be IGF without the broad community involvement, participation and
ownership that we've come to know with the current IGF. If it were to
become fully a (specialized) UN agency just like UNESCO or ITU, mainly
based on nation-state membership (with some extension to corporate/ non-UN
organizational entities like with ITU), it would lose a lot of the
community participation and energy, running the risk to become a
duplication of ITU only with a narrower scope, possibly. Which would be a
problem for the UN itself (and for ITU, incidentally.) In sum, that would
be self-defeating on nearly all accounts, at least.

Instead (and as a thought experiment beyond the current statement drafting
exercise), I was thinking of the possibility of something hybrid where IGF
could retain the UN caché, institutional capacity and type of legitimacy
but without the minuses :) whereby the current authority solely held by the
UN/UNGA will be shared among a multistakeholder governing body including UN
inter pares with ICANN, ISOC, etc. possibly ITU, UNESCO, etc. CS
individuals/organizations, Academics, possibly a couple of individual
governments, etc. perhaps a total of some 21-25 maximum members for
instance (sorry, I don't mean to be exhaustive here, but just to give an
idea.) In addition to that there would be a lean Secretariat (the actual
entity to be incorporated/registered) that would pretty much looks like the
one we've got now but with more support, and an advisory body which would
take over from the current MAG. It would be that governing multistakeholder
body (not to be incorporated) which will make the highest decisions
regarding the IGF including, with the community inputs, whether to
discontinue IGF altogether when such time comes as when the Forum is no
longer serving its purpose. (A joint meeting with both the governing and
the advisory bodies might assume the role of 'general assembly' for this
non-profit "Secretariat" reviewing financial accounts and making sure the
rules and procedures are followed by the "Secretariat".)  Of course the
mechanism to appoint the members of the governing body with possible
rotations will have to be carefully designed and accepted by the community
(rough consensus?).

As I said, just a thought experiment reflecting my initial assessment of
the situation.
Thanks,

Mawaki

  See my response to Michael below for more.
>
> On a personal note, I'm quite glad to see you intervening on these various
> lists, and I think that your posts are generally really thoughtful and
> excellent.  I never delete or file them before taking the time to read them
> completely.
>
> George
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/ecb8d80a/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Sep  3 02:34:13 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 08:34:13 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdpJtHvzATJ3-eV-TnFV2wnFJDK_PHB+8AsQOtBgG1rJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>	<8DD54C68-71F5-42D2-BBC6-52F38732E7A6@opentechinstitute.org>	<CAK-FJAf8JX0Zt8_VKH+5aSo+Or3e=simx21mQodJfDLrPbEq-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAdpJtHvzATJ3-eV-TnFV2wnFJDK_PHB+8AsQOtBgG1rJA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5406B665.8090500@wzb.eu>

Hi Carolina, hi all,

we see positive responses for the statement # 1 from various 
organizations including governments. There are chances that, more or 
less by accident, we produce an outcome at this year's IGF that has been 
co-authored by two civil society individuals. There has been very little 
feedback from civil society so far.

It would be good if the groups in favor of making the IGF more outcome 
orientied would have a look at the statement and let us know by tomorrow 
if they are able to endorse it or not.

As I said yesterday, we will do minor changes later today but the basic 
content is stable by now.

I hope I don't sound too pushy but of course our minds are all busy with 
the workshops and other sessions we are involved in this week. So I am 
merely trying to get attention and compete with all your other tasks 
throughout the IGF.

jeanette





Am 02.09.14 15:37, schrieb Carolina Rossini:
> and regarding Jeremy's question:
>
> my suggestion
>
> (a) regarding statement (1) - let organizations decide by themselves. I
> do not think we have time for consensus and I agree it is getting
> tricky, since dealing with other issues beyond the clear BB consensus.
>   But Jeannete is still looking for suggestions in developing it.
>
> (b) regarding statement (2)  - it still needs work. And yes, I agree it
> should be in the BB for members to sign it. And definitely Burcu could
> refer to it.
>
> (c) regarding statement 3 - it is an interesting idea to "recording 3 on
> the "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at
> http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014 " BUT we also have the meeting
> report to look for inputs for it. The report has been consolidated and
> already shared with the steering committee. I am waiting for the SC to
> comment (deadline today), so we can re-consolidate and send to all at
> BB. So we may want to wait to put anything up for a while and also give
> more time for folks to add and review it without rush.
>
> Cheers,
>
> C
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Carolina Rossini
> <carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     and BB's text as of now with comments:
>
>     https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>
>     -- sign-on statement (these can also be notes for Burcu's closing
>     address?)
>
>     We,   the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits
>     Network,  re-emphasise that human rights and development are
>     underlying concerns  for all internet governance processes and
>     mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF  in Istanbul we wish to in particular
>     call for: (and then the specific  demands below)
>
>     1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom
>     of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in
>     relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore
>     BestBits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum
>     and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to
>     human rights.
>
>     (Brett: I fully support the statement but think that the reference
>     to the Turkish environment above should come as the final stand
>     alone point after the 5 substantive points below)
>
>     2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a
>     permanent multistakeholder forum within the framework of the United
>     Nations, that should be reformed and strengthened.
>
>     3. We call for a more thorough and timely review of the IGF
>     post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order
>     to look at  potential changes that could lead to its further
>     strengthening.
>
>     4 . We support the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of
>     the Internet - known as the NETMundial and its recommendations for
>     the IGF, but express concerns about the number of new processes
>     which civil society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF
>     (Carol's comment: this part locks weird.."express concerns to be
>     invited"??!!! many times CS complains it was not invited and now it
>     is comparing it is being invited?! ah!. Ok, we need to rephrase this
>     concern. It is more about "distractions that do not add value..."
>     than about "being invited" . So I suggest: "but express concerns
>     about the number of parallel initiatives that might distract
>     stakeholders from process where the added value is clear") .and call
>     for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.
>
>     5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap set
>     in its outcome document by, for example, focusing on netneutrality
>     and ask the MAG, UNDESA and Brazil - the host of the 2015 IGF - to
>     build on this roadmap, and to build upon the regional and national
>     IGFs as core opportunities that feed into this process.
>
>     6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities
>     (Carol's comment: suggest listing them) to ensure that stakeholders
>     interests and views are heard and taken into account.
>
>
>
>     On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Kevin Bankston
>     <bankston at opentechinstitute.org
>     <mailto:bankston at opentechinstitute.org>> wrote:
>
>         Jeremy, you are a treasure.  Thank you for clarifying matters.
>         _____________________________________
>         Kevin S. Bankston
>         Policy Director, Open Technology Institute
>         New America Foundation
>         1899 L Street NW, Suite 400
>         Washington, DC 20036
>         bankston at opentechinstitute.org
>         <mailto:bankston at opentechinstitute.org>
>         Phone: 202-596-3415 <tel:202-596-3415>
>         Fax: 202-986-3696 <tel:202-986-3696>
>         @kevinbankston
>
>         On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>         <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>          > On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org
>         <mailto:joy at apc.org>> wrote:
>          >
>          >> Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best
>         Bits meeting
>          >> earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
>          >> Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft
>         statement which is
>          >> in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>          >> The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean
>         version starting
>          >> at line 325.
>          >> Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any
>         edits can be
>          >> made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of
>         Thursday
>          >> Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>          >
>          > So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>          >
>          > 1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
>         https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be
>         a *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>          >
>          > 2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line
>         325 which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF
>         extension and other issues.[1]
>          >
>          > 3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
>         establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum
>         within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and
>         strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus*
>         outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>          >
>          > MY QUESTION:
>          >
>          > It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits
>         website for individual endorsement as per our usual practice.
>         But what happens with 1 and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the
>         "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at
>         http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what would be an
>         appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show support
>         for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the consensus
>         that we reached on 3)?
>          >
>          >
>          > [0] Current full text below:
>          >
>          > In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General
>         in the Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for
>         multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>         Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>          >
>          > The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues
>         relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those
>         enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the
>         sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development
>         of the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum
>         was not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms,
>         institutions or organizations. It was intended to constitute a
>         neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no
>         involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>          >
>          > The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to
>         examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in
>         formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years
>         of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN
>         Membership in this regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the
>         General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF,
>         underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking
>         it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance”.
>          >
>          > In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance
>         Forum, the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was
>         unique and valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil
>         society, the private sector and international organizations
>         discuss important questions of economic and social development.
>         They share their insights and achievements and build a common
>         understanding of the Internet’s great potential.
>          >
>          > The Secretary-General recommended that
>          > (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be
>         extended for a further five years;
>          > (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again
>         by Member
>          > States within the context of a 10-year review of
>         implementation of the outcome of the World Summit on the
>         Information Society in 2015;
>          >
>          > Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of
>         the preliminary list*,  Information and communications
>         technologies for development, Economic and Social Council,
>         Substantive session of 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010,
>         Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>          >
>          > The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil,
>         stated in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April
>         24th, 2014, that there is a need for a strengthened Internet
>         Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end
>         had already been made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF
>         improvements. The NetMundial Statement also stated that “a
>         strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing
>         both long standing and emerging issues with a view to
>         contributing to the identification of possible ways to address
>         them.”
>          >
>          > In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment
>         of IGF.  We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has
>         proven its worth. (content here on why)  We think it is time to
>         build on the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN
>         initiated with the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate
>         and reliable financial support. These two goals are
>         interrelated.  To address the need for sustainable funding, the
>         Internet Governance Forum Support Association
>         (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014.  The goal of
>         this non-profit  is to support and promote sustainable funding
>         for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing
>         funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the
>         IGF are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet
>         community needs in order to continues its work for the global
>         Internet development goals.
>          >
>          > Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for
>         the continuing development of Internet governance and based on
>         success of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request
>         the UN Secretary General to  establish the IGF as an ongoing
>         (permanent) forum.  We believe that the IGF should move beyond
>         its initiation phase where repeated renewal by the UN General
>         assembly is required and that it be allowed to do long range
>         planning for its continuing and evolving work. We also request
>         that the UN Secretary General work with the IGF and its
>         stakeholders to strengthen its structure and processes in the
>         spirit of its open and multistakeholder foundation.
>          >
>          >
>          > [1] Current full text below:
>          >
>          > We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits
>         Network,  re-emphasise that human rights and development are
>         underlying concerns  for all internet governance processes and
>         mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF  in Istanbul we wish to in
>         particular call for: (and then the specific  demands below)
>          >
>          > 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for
>         freedom of expression and access to information in Turkey,
>         especially in relation to internet filtering and blocking of
>         content. Therefore Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the
>         Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society
>         organizations to address this threat to human rights.
>          >
>          > 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>         multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that
>         should be reformed and strengthened.
>          >
>          > 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF
>         post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to
>         look at  potential changes that could lead to its further
>         strengthening.
>          >
>          > 4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the
>         IGF, but express concerns about the number of new processes
>         which civil society is being asked to be involved outside of the
>         IGF and call for it to continue as the key forum for internet
>         governance issues.
>          >
>          > 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial
>         roadmap by, for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the
>         MAG and UNDESA and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to
>         build on this, and to use regional and national IGFs as part of
>         this process.
>          >
>          > 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review
>         modalities to ensure that stakeholders interests and views are
>         heard and taken into account.
>          >
>          > --
>          > Jeremy Malcolm
>          > Senior Global Policy Analyst
>          > Electronic Frontier Foundation
>          > https://eff.org
>          > jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>          >
>          > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>          >
>          > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>          >
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     --
>     /Carolina Rossini /
>     /Vice President, International Policy/
>     *Public Knowledge*
>     _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>     + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed Sep  3 01:44:21 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:44:21 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <5406B665.8090500@wzb.eu>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>	<8DD54C68-71F5-42D2-BBC6-52F38732E7A6@opentechinstitute.org>	<CAK-FJAf8JX0Zt8_VKH+5aSo+Or3e=simx21mQodJfDLrPbEq-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAdpJtHvzATJ3-eV-TnFV2wnFJDK_PHB+8AsQOtBgG1rJA@mail.gmail.com> <5406B665.8090500@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <8DA5BDD6-0B98-4674-85E1-0F782DF2FDDD@eff.org>

On Sep 3, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> we see positive responses for the statement # 1 from various organizations including governments. There are chances that, more or less by accident, we produce an outcome at this year's IGF that has been co-authored by two civil society individuals. There has been very little feedback from civil society so far.
> 
> It would be good if the groups in favor of making the IGF more outcome orientied would have a look at the statement and let us know by tomorrow if they are able to endorse it or not.
> 
> As I said yesterday, we will do minor changes later today but the basic content is stable by now.

Once those minor changes are done, it has been suggested it be posted to the Best Bits site for endorsement along with statement #3 - not to detract from the fact that #1 will be a multi-stakeholder statement which has a different status to a Best Bits network statement, but rather so that there is an easy way for us to express our individual endorsement with it.

If this meets with your approval Jeannette, please let me know when the minor changes are done.  (Meanwhile I'm also checking on this with the steering committee.)

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/8edfb46b/attachment.sig>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 01:50:03 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:50:03 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbHohqD2hEUTvQ+13OrNwA1g4jJdGHeT6CffiMR1Otigwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net> <CAFwCmbGJuswDXhvXTc5GB7kBtAHS2V-KWpzBg5jw7NdimpMnig@mail.gmail.com> <5405D9B8.5050205@itforchange.net> <CAFwCmbHohqD2hEUTvQ+13OrNwA1g4jJdGHeT6CffiMR1Otigwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A621D47B-480F-4785-B4E2-13BC7515F1B3@gmail.com>

Hi

This has been reported and commented on a number of times but I guess it just doesn’t fit some preferred narratives.  WEF has been very clear in print and in word that they do not intend to stick their nose into norm-setting, they know they can have no hope of contributing there and it would get chopped off.  The idea has always been to carry forward on some projects where where mobilized resources would be required. These were mostly mentioned (albeit vaguely) in the panel report and in two cases in the NM outcome doc.  It’s reasonable to debate whether these are potentially useful projects, whether WEF is an appropriate platform on which to bring people together to work on them, whether the people doing them are the right ones, what kind of outreach and inclusion would be needed for the ms oversight committees and public input mechanisms etc., but debating things they have said clearly they will not be doing just seems unproductive.

BIll

On Sep 2, 2014, at 7:56 PM, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:52 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> it is about institutionalising something that is supposed to crystallise the spirit (variously interpreted) of Net Mundial, as a/ the key global IG process.
> 
> Parminder, I'm not sure this is right ... it's very hard to read the tea leaves, but after listening to everything that was said in Geneva, I honestly don't think that WEF has much appetite to become or convene a norm-setting institution on IG with all of the (time-consuming, tiresome - from WEF's perspective) negotiation, consensus-building that evidently entails. I think the aim is to parachute quickly in with "action partnerships" that they hope will *indirectly* build developing country support for the multi-stakeholder approach. 
> 
> But in any case, I think I'm in agreement with you that the WEF initiative should not be allowed to appropriate any special status or aspirations in the IG realm - least of all by civil society.
> 
> Best
> Anne 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anne Jellema 
> CEO  
> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) 
> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> @afjellema 
> 
> World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation 
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/85faef4d/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Sep  3 04:15:57 2014
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 11:15:57 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
In-Reply-To: <8DA5BDD6-0B98-4674-85E1-0F782DF2FDDD@eff.org>
References: <5405A3A2.4090609@apc.org>	<CEA1C78B-6B87-46BE-9B86-A50FA0CE812F@eff.org>	<8DD54C68-71F5-42D2-BBC6-52F38732E7A6@opentechinstitute.org>	<CAK-FJAf8JX0Zt8_VKH+5aSo+Or3e=simx21mQodJfDLrPbEq-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAdpJtHvzATJ3-eV-TnFV2wnFJDK_PHB+8AsQOtBgG1rJA@mail.gmail.com> <5406B665.8090500@wzb.eu> <8DA5BDD6-0B98-4674-85E1-0F782DF2FDDD@eff.org>
Message-ID: <5406CE3D.8040401@cdt.org>

Hi

Would it be possible to list the links to each of these docs (seems 
there are 3 now)?   Its challenging to follow the various strands on this.

Thanks.

Matthew

On 9/3/2014 8:44 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>> we see positive responses for the statement # 1 from various organizations including governments. There are chances that, more or less by accident, we produce an outcome at this year's IGF that has been co-authored by two civil society individuals. There has been very little feedback from civil society so far.
>>
>> It would be good if the groups in favor of making the IGF more outcome orientied would have a look at the statement and let us know by tomorrow if they are able to endorse it or not.
>>
>> As I said yesterday, we will do minor changes later today but the basic content is stable by now.
> Once those minor changes are done, it has been suggested it be posted to the Best Bits site for endorsement along with statement #3 - not to detract from the fact that #1 will be a multi-stakeholder statement which has a different status to a Best Bits network statement, but rather so that there is an easy way for us to express our individual endorsement with it.
>
> If this meets with your approval Jeannette, please let me know when the minor changes are done.  (Meanwhile I'm also checking on this with the steering committee.)
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/7d2ca02e/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Sep  3 08:13:20 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:13:20 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <B9E3FD54-C9F5-4C12-80B1-0ED4399FCF23@me.com> <CALTAiTqNGmO=WtVBuSO-am5TQCcB9daBoSagrZ_naYdVtoyBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcLq10QwBxJx1y71=6FBdAu22yYK_S3UW1+Yq8eVgzSDEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFw6PkEafnJ=+TLnt+pdBjJxHoqBf+uaTct7nx21TNSJw@mail.gmail.com> <54046643.8090908@itforchange.net> <54047C08.6080408@cafonso.ca> <4809F759-45BB-4CAD-9D60-312841D59609@gmail.com> <D02A5F54.4A3C4%vanda@uol.com.br> <5404E744.9050505@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <9696A3E0-1E75-4D70-9A7B-F69D1CF06CBC@cafonso.ca>

As if UN funds were spontaneously generated, given by a bunch of neutral high-priests or came from Mars... and thus remaining immune from gov or business influence?

--c.a.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 02/09/2014, at 00:38, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously. 
> 
> It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
>> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF
>> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on
>> IGF.  
>> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also
>> long  time to take decisions due to consultations to any government,
>> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily
>> report.
>> Better not to go through this path.
>> Vanda Scartezini
>> Polo Consultores Associados
>> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is
>>> not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions
>>> regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions
>>> made by the UN General Assembly.
>>> 
>>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a
>>> non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006)
>>> that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the
>>> time who were working the event were told to let management know if he
>>> showed up so that he could be denied admission.
>>> 
>>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was
>>> finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to
>>> further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This
>>> delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code
>>> TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.
>>> 
>>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are
>>> probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.
>>> 
>>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are
>>> not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic,
>>> bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not
>>> increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN
>>> administration/control/funding of future IGFs.
>>> 
>>> George 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming
>>>> a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from
>>>> other sources.
>>>> 
>>>> --c.a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>> I support the call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>>>>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>>>>> stable source of funding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated
>>>>> body
>>>>> with institutional funding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN,
>>>>> measure.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>> Anne
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>>>>>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>>>>>    final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>>>>>    should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>>>>>    IGFs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    e
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Eduardo
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>>>>>    <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        Agree.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>>>>        (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>>>>>        UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>>>>>        that these recommendations will be
>>>>>>        implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>>>>>        inter-alia:
>>>>>>        a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>>>>>        creative
>>>>>>        ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>>>>>        policy options;
>>>>>>        b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>>>>>        c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>>>>>        IGF, including
>>>>>>        through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>>>>>        d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>>>>>        discussions
>>>>>>        between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>>>>>        A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>>>>>        discussing both long
>>>>>>        standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>>>>>        the identification of
>>>>>>        possible ways to address them."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>>>>>        IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>>>>>        another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        best
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        joana
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>>>>>        <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>            Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>>>>>            this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>            _
>>>>>>            João Carlos Caribé
>>>>>>            (021) 8761 1967
>>>>>>            (021) 4042 7727
>>>>>>            Skype joaocaribe
>>>>>>            Enviado via iPad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>            > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>            <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > Hi all,
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>>>>>            BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>>>>>            permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>>>>>            limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>>>>>            > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>>>>>            BB meeting.
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>>>>>            with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>>>>>            impression that we might be able to draft a
>>>>>>            cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>>>>>            community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>>>>>            support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>>>>>            possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>>>>>            enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>>>>>            inclusive statement.)
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>>>>>            this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>>>>>            within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>>>>>            bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>>>>>            find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>>>>>            support in civil society.
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > jeanette
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>>            > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>>>>>            If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>>>>>            someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>>>>            >
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>            > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>            > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>            <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>            > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>            > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>            You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>            bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>            <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>            To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>            http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        --         --
>>>>>>        Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>>>        @joana_varon
>>>>>>        PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>        To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Anne Jellema
>>>>>> CEO
>>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>>>>> @afjellema
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
>>>>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/91318cd9/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Wed Sep  3 08:21:55 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:21:55 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>

Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]:
> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the permanent mandate of the IGF

I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. 
Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.

The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should 
push for accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really 
going to help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA 
contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, 
though the analogy is not perfect).  I would support making the 
evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) more participative 
and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".

I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its 
mandate before we call for it to be made permanent.  For instance:

   * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the 
stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and 
affordability of the Internet in the developing world?
   * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from 
the use and misuse of the Internet?
   * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant 
bodies?  If so, which issues and which bodies?
   * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under their 
purview?  If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited from this 
interfacing?

I believe that stability of the IGF is very important.  However, I think 
for stability to be achieved it is far more important to strengthen the 
IGF processes, making it more important, getting it (and people who wish 
to participate in it) greater funding, etc., than to make the IGF 
permanent.  I believe these (especially having a 5/10-year mandate and 
finances for the IGF secretariat) would do a great deal more to bringing 
stability to the IGF than making it permanent would.

Apologies for sounding an off-note.

Regards,
Pranesh


Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-001 10:33:30 +0200]:
> Hi all,
>
> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing
> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>
> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able
> to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
> community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a
> statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days
> available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an
> all inclusive statement.)
>
> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
> support in civil society.
>
> jeanette
>
> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/e4c8d6e1/attachment.sig>

From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu  Mon Sep  1 03:44:24 2014
From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:44:24 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <CAOi1r6b7AK8DQg3KQhcO3nBbzYdpL5xeu_zF9OJmsWDiG-okLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAApcLcKLTK3GN8oan36kPF3Sn16Ga4N5KEGgJU=Z55kaF-fmpA@mail.gmail.com>

+1
Eduardo

Eduardo


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>
wrote:

> i would support such an initiative
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt*
> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
>
>
>
>
> On 1 September 2014 09:33, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
>> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
>> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>
>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
>> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
>> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
>> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
>> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
>> statement.)
>>
>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>> support in civil society.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/b731bdcf/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Sep  3 08:36:28 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:36:28 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <54070B4C.9040805@mail.utoronto.ca>

Pranesh, I think you are voicing concerns that we have heard from both 
govt and business.  Frankly, we are asking for a ten year stable 
mandate, not "permanence" to enable long range projects and investment.  
WE do not want to go back begging for a renewal in five years.  We are 
unlikely to be able to establish a permanent body at the UN, but we can 
do a lot to stabilize and strengthen the IGF using this approach.
Thanks
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-09-03, 8:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]:
>> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the 
>> permanent mandate of the IGF
>
> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. 
> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>
> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should 
> push for accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really 
> going to help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA 
> contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, 
> though the analogy is not perfect).  I would support making the 
> evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) more participative 
> and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>
> I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its 
> mandate before we call for it to be made permanent.  For instance:
>
>   * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the 
> stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and 
> affordability of the Internet in the developing world?
>   * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from 
> the use and misuse of the Internet?
>   * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant 
> bodies?  If so, which issues and which bodies?
>   * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under 
> their purview?  If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited 
> from this interfacing?
>
> I believe that stability of the IGF is very important.  However, I 
> think for stability to be achieved it is far more important to 
> strengthen the IGF processes, making it more important, getting it 
> (and people who wish to participate in it) greater funding, etc., than 
> to make the IGF permanent.  I believe these (especially having a 
> 5/10-year mandate and finances for the IGF secretariat) would do a 
> great deal more to bringing stability to the IGF than making it 
> permanent would.
>
> Apologies for sounding an off-note.
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-001 10:33:30 +0200]:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
>> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of renewing
>> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>
>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able
>> to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a
>> statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days
>> available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an
>> all inclusive statement.)
>>
>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>> support in civil society.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/76bcd6ec/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Sep  3 09:15:08 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:15:08 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5407145C.90701@apc.org>

Dear all

This is an excellent initiative.

I have not read all the comments.. my apologies. Too busy here are the IGF.

These few comments are what struck me when I read the statement:

1) Summary of the IGF mandate from the Tunis Agenda. The summary omits
several really key point from the TA IGF mandate. I would suggest either
quoting the entire agenda, or making the summary more comprehensive, or
just referencing it. It is short so  my preference would be to quote the
full text.


On 02/09/2014 17:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft
> statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on
> various aspects of the document and made the required revisions. 
> Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and
> formal approval process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on the
> pad at  https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
> Kind regards,
> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each
>> of these lists)
>>
>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments
>> received so far:
>>
>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects
>> in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the
>> Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request
>> could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>>
>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but
>> that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get
>> advise from the diplomats @ IGF.
>>
>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN
>> General Assembly.
>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from
>> the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even
>> if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce
>> outcomes)
>>
>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects
>> such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF
>>
>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>>
>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>>
>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF
>> local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support
>> for it.
>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>>
>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are
>> inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>> (removed cross posting)
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>>>
>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the
>>> text
>>> relatively brief
>>>
>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the
>>> ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some text to that
>>> end.
>>>
>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the
>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected
>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years.
>>>   As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some
>>> examples can
>>> be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware of the progress
>>> being
>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit.
>>>> I support it.
>>>>
>>>> wolfgang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette
>>>> Hofmann
>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN
>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a
>>>> permanent basis.
>>>>
>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the
>>>> IGF
>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>>
>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and
>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>>
>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>
>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>>
>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/9fc9939d/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Sep  3 10:06:05 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 16:06:05 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <5407145C.90701@apc.org>
References: <540486BE.8020007@wzb.eu>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642620@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54054EED.4050304@acm.org> <540564E8.7060903@wzb.eu> <5405DC53.50500@mail.utoronto.ca> <5407145C.90701@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5407204D.6000501@apc.org>

Apologies all.. this message was sent before I completed it. Let me
start again.


Dear all

This is an excellent initiative.

I have not read all the comments.. my apologies. Too busy here are the IGF.

These few comments are what struck me when I read the statement:

1) Summary of the IGF mandate from the Tunis Agenda. The summary omits
several really key point from the TA IGF mandate. I would suggest either
quoting the entire agenda, or making the summary more comprehensive, or
just referencing it. It is short so  my preference would be to quote the
full text.

2) Where we reference national and regional IGFs could we say that most
of these involved the active support and participation of UN member states?

3) Can we get to the point of the recommendation earlier in the text?
Background can follow later.

4) I am not sure we should give this option in this way:If this is
impossible given current UN rules and regulations, we would recommend a
stable ten year extension, to enable longer-range commitments and
financial planning.

I suggest we just leave it.

All for now and apologies for not being able to read and comment on
everyone's comments.

Anriette


On 03/09/2014 15:15, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> This is an excellent initiative.
>
> I have not read all the comments.. my apologies. Too busy here are the
> IGF.
>
> These few comments are what struck me when I read the statement:
>
> 1) Summary of the IGF mandate from the Tunis Agenda. The summary omits
> several really key point from the TA IGF mandate. I would suggest
> either quoting the entire agenda, or making the summary more
> comprehensive, or just referencing it. It is short so  my preference
> would be to quote the full text.
>
>
> On 02/09/2014 17:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft
>> statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on
>> various aspects of the document and made the required revisions. 
>> Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and
>> formal approval process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on the
>> pad at  https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>> Kind regards,
>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
>> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each
>>> of these lists)
>>>
>>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments
>>> received so far:
>>>
>>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that
>>> projects in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we
>>> ask the Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a
>>> request could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>>>
>>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement
>>> but that we have to be careful about its language and that we need
>>> to get advise from the diplomats @ IGF.
>>>
>>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the
>>> UN General Assembly.
>>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from
>>> the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even
>>> if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to
>>> produce outcomes)
>>>
>>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects
>>> such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF
>>>
>>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>>>
>>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>>>
>>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF
>>> local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support
>>> for it.
>>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>>>
>>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We
>>> are inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>>> (removed cross posting)
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the
>>>> text
>>>> relatively brief
>>>>
>>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
>>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the
>>>> ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some text to
>>>> that end.
>>>>
>>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the
>>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected
>>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9
>>>> years.
>>>>   As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some
>>>> examples can
>>>> be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware of the progress
>>>> being
>>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit.
>>>>> I support it.
>>>>>
>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette
>>>>> Hofmann
>>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN
>>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a
>>>>> permanent basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to
>>>>> the IGF
>>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and
>>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>>>
>>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> -- 
> `````````````````````````````````
> anriette esterhuysen
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
> anriette at apc.org
> www.apc.org

-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/15e2d0a6/attachment.htm>

From wsaqaf at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 10:25:13 2014
From: wsaqaf at gmail.com (Walid AL-SAQAF)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:25:13 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
	<540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
	<0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CAKJSUixCiF1hqJLxgDFKpOpQ-XrdLfcY0mUpd9W2vTBo+L78Qg@mail.gmail.com>

Absolutely a +1.

Sincerely,

Walid
On Sep 3, 2014 5:07 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
> > Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
> >
> > The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should
> push for
> > accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really going to
> help
> > accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable
> has
> > helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not
> perfect).
> > I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's
> term)
> > more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>
> Agree with Pranash
> --MM
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/ce2dde9a/attachment.htm>

From prasanth at cyberjuris.in  Wed Sep  3 11:08:31 2014
From: prasanth at cyberjuris.in (Prasanth Sugathan)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 20:38:31 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Report on Surveillance in India released
In-Reply-To: <54072E00.9020408@softwarefreedom.in>
References: <54072E00.9020408@softwarefreedom.in>
Message-ID: <54072EEF.7040002@cyberjuris.in>

Dear all,

SFLC.in released a report titled "India's Surveillance State" at the
Internet Governance Forum which commenced on September 2, 2014 at
Istanbul, Turkey.

The report delves into communications surveillance in India and takes an
in-depth look at various aspects of India's surveillance machinery,
including enabling provisions of law, service provider obligations, and
known mechanisms. It examines compliance of India's legal provisions on
surveillance with the International Principles on the Application of
Human Rights to Communications Surveillance that were formulated after a
global consultation with civil society groups, industry, and
international experts in communications surveillance law, policy, and
technology.

Talking about the report and the importance of privacy, Mishi Choudhary,
Executive Director of SFLC.in said "We are delighted to release the
first in a series of reports on India's communications surveillance and
are hopeful that it will kick start a constructive dialogue on online
privacy in the country. We are also very optimistic about the new Indian
Government who unlike its predecessor has taken up the issue of state
surveillance seriously. We look forward to working with them towards
building a more equal internet. We are thankful to the Web We Want
Initiative for their guidance and support"

Some major points brought out in this report:

  *

    An application under the Right to Information Act filed by SFLC.in
    revealed a list of 26 companies, including foreign companies, that
    had expressed interest in placing bids on a tender floated for
    Internet monitoring systems clearly evincing a large number of firms
    active in selling surveillance equipment in India. Several of these
    companies have incidentally been included in the list disclosed as
    part of /the Spy Files /project of Wikileaks.

  *

    Another revelation was that on an average more than a lakh (100,000) of  telephone interception orders are issued by the Central government alone every year. On adding the surveillance orders issued by the State Governments to this, it becomes clear that India routinely surveills her citizens' communications on a truly staggering scale.

  *

    State surveillance of citizens' private communications is authorized
    by legislative enactments such as the Indian Telegraph Act and the
    Information Technology Act, which allow Indian law enforcement
    agencies to closely monitor phone calls, texts, e-mails and general
    Internet activity on a number of broadly worded grounds. They
    establish an opaque surveillance regime that is run solely by the
    Executive arm of the Government, and make no provisions for
    independent oversight of the surveillance process.

  *

    An unknown number of Lawful Interception and Monitoring (LIM) systems tasked with the collection and analysis of citizens' communications data and meta-data are already installed into India's communication networks. On top of these, capability-enhancing technologies and databases such as the Central Monitoring System (CMS), Network Traffic Analysis (NETRA) and National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) are in varying stages of deployment. The Government of India is also known to outsource surveillance initiatives to private third parties, some of which go so far as to infect target devices using malicious software in order to gain access to information stored within.

  *

    It was revealed by a source that NETRA storage servers will be installed at more than 1000 locations across India, each with a storage capacity of 300 GB totaling to 300 TB of storage initially.

  *

    Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 imposes an obligation by which Internet Service Providers are to provide all assistance to the government agencies to intercept any communication and a  failure to comply with it may result in imprisonment for upto 7 years and fines.

  *

    The Controller of Certifying Authorities uses Section 28 of the IT Act, an ambiguous provision, to collect user data from technology companies.  An RTI request revealed that they have made 73 requests under this provision in 2011. 

  *

    Indian laws, policies and practices with respect to surveillance are not in conformity with International human rights law as evinced by the report of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights released on June 30, 2014.

  *

    Considering how all the above takes place in a framework that has yet to accord legislative recognition to the existence of a Right to Privacy, no concerns over undue State surveillance can be termed as unfounded.

A copy of the report can be downloaded here :
http://sflc.in/indias-surveillance-state-our-report-on-communications-surveillance-in-india/


About SFLC.in :

/SFLC.IN is a donor supported legal services organization that brings
together lawyers, policy analysts, technologists, and students to
protect freedom in the digital world. SFLC.IN promotes innovation and
open access to knowledge by helping developers make great Free and Open
Source Software, protect privacy and civil liberties for citizens in the
digital world by educating and providing free legal advice and help
policy makers make informed and just decisions with the use and adoption
of technology./


-- 
Prasanth Sugathan
Counsel,
sflc.in,
K-9, Birbal Road, Second Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi-110014
Phone# +91-11-43587126
Cell: +91 9013585902
www.sflc.in



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/1cab7b1b/attachment.htm>

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 12:08:01 2014
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:08:01 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org> <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com>

I agree with Prakesh also.

George


On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
>> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>> 
>> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for
>> accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really going to help
>> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has
>> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect).
>> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term)
>> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
> 
> Agree with Pranash
> --MM
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Sep  3 12:09:43 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:09:43 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Final draft of the IGF Mandate recommendation statement
Message-ID: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca>

Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF 
mandate.  We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic that 
many different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including countries.  
Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc Jeanette Hofmann, 
and I will manage their input prior to the opening of the document for 
signature tomorrow morning.  We are looking for a suitable platform to 
put the document up for signature, suggestions welcome.
Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with 
everyone!
Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended mandate of the Internet Governance Forum5.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 135475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/dccf4612/attachment.docx>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 12:35:26 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:35:26 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu>
	<540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6g0dgEWHWP8PJxjBMA_G-DMhRuWgbMFJzT2jqg1Ln9v3A@mail.gmail.com>

+1. From most sessions I followed at IGF holding in Istanbul, when
questions relating learning those success stories get asked, the overall
response goes in the line of "....there are no  specific references but we
are certain there are achievement"
I for one agree that the IGF may have achieved quite a lot and one of such
is the open avenue for participation which it has created. However, what I
think may have been missed is the proper follow-up on deliberations beyond
a particular IGF. Building a database of those follow-up outcomes/status at
national, regional and global level would have helped anyone appreciate the
situation.
While more prolonged years may be in order to improve on focus and help in
setting longer time milestone based goals. There wouldn't be any difference
if the IGF does not review it present state with the goal of making drastic
change to it's process towards becoming more action oriented. The
participation layer has been achieved to some extent, the public impact
aspect is what I hope next IGF term would focus on more.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 3 Sep 2014 15:22, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:

> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]:
>
>> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the permanent
>> mandate of the IGF
>>
>
> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>
> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push
> for accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really going to
> help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be
> renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy
> is not perfect).  I would support making the evaluation process (for
> renewal of the IGF's term) more participative and transparent and, yes,
> more "multistakeholder".
>
> I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its mandate
> before we call for it to be made permanent.  For instance:
>
>   * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the
> stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and
> affordability of the Internet in the developing world?
>   * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from the
> use and misuse of the Internet?
>   * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant
> bodies?  If so, which issues and which bodies?
>   * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under their
> purview?  If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited from this
> interfacing?
>
> I believe that stability of the IGF is very important.  However, I think
> for stability to be achieved it is far more important to strengthen the IGF
> processes, making it more important, getting it (and people who wish to
> participate in it) greater funding, etc., than to make the IGF permanent.
> I believe these (especially having a 5/10-year mandate and finances for the
> IGF secretariat) would do a great deal more to bringing stability to the
> IGF than making it permanent would.
>
> Apologies for sounding an off-note.
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-001 10:33:30 +0200]:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
>> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing
>> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>
>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able
>> to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a
>> statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days
>> available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an
>> all inclusive statement.)
>>
>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>> support in civil society.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/ba2de7be/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Sep  3 12:57:39 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:57:39 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
In-Reply-To: <0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com>
References: <54042F5A.5090307@wzb.eu> <540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org>
 <0c723e123dda4a09a984946576af81df@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>,<0957D067-E51A-4A3F-AA0B-6FF7F291330E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <83d63a1ad9bc437baf28a667994eb10a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

My cent:

Split the difference.

Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation in IGF; 

coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in the -annual - review process for IGF accountability and transparency reasons.

Everyone's a winner.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM
To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller
Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent

I agree with Prakesh also.

George


On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
>> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>>
>> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push for
>> accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really going to help
>> accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be renewable has
>> helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect).
>> I would support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term)
>> more participative and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>
> Agree with Pranash
> --MM
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 13:31:40 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:31:40 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Final draft of the IGF Mandate recommendation
 statement
In-Reply-To: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <54073D47.9020505@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <132f01cfc79c$ecb71200$c6253600$@gmail.com>

While in general being mildly supportive of a continuation of the IGF I have
considerable reservations about the current organization/governance of the
IGF including and particularly the procedures for the selection of the
membership of the MAG; the mandate of the MAG and the procedures (and
governance structures) if any, for its "evolution"; the appointment
procedures, and roles and responsibilities of the UN appointees with respect
to the IGF either in a supervisory, advisory or consultants role with the
IGF; among other issues.

Perhaps this has been covered in the discussion to date or there are
documents concerning the IGF/MAG with which I am not familiar but based on
my own observations over several years there would seem to be some actual
and potential issues concerning the current IGF which would need to be
addressed presumably as part of a decision with respect to "IGF
permanency/continuity", in whatever form that might take.

Without apparently even making an allusion to some of these issues it is
hard to see how one could support this "statement".

Mike   

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:10 AM
To: Best Bits; 1Net Discuss; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Subject: [bestbits] Final draft of the IGF Mandate recommendation statement

Attached is the final draft of the statement re extension of the IGF
mandate.  We have engaged in many consultations and are optimistic that many
different stakeholders will sign on, possibly including countries.  
Please return any comments to me directly tonight, cc Jeanette Hofmann, and
I will manage their input prior to the opening of the document for signature
tomorrow morning.  We are looking for a suitable platform to put the
document up for signature, suggestions welcome.
Thank you all for your help on this, it has been great to work with
everyone!
Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann